Chapter IX: Preface (7)

In 1819, the most exciting question that ever agitated the councils of the nation, came before congress for adjustment――the question of admitting Missouri as a state into the Union. It was correctly called a ‘_distracting question_,’ for it caused a political earthquake, whose quaking influences were felt from one end of the land to the other; and even now its recollection causes a sensation of terror to come over those who were the immediate witnesses of it. Its contemplation made the stout-hearted patriot, and the immovably good of all classes, to turn pale with fear, who believed, that unless it could be calmed, it would engulph in irremediable ruin the liberties of the republic. It was not the simple question of admission which convulsed the country, but the terms with which it was proposed to connect her reception into the confederacy――terms involving another question, one which furnished all the fuel which kindled the fires of the most acrimonious strife, in every section of the nation――the _question of slavery_. The question of admission divided the country into two great parties. A large and respectable portion of her representatives at Washington, desired the admission to be unconditional, while the other wished it to be subject to certain conditions, among which was the following: that ‘all children of slaves, born within the said state after the admission thereof into the union, shall be free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-five years, and the farther introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude is prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.’ With the certainty of intuition, Mr. Clay foresaw and predicted the alarming consequences which would flow from the fiery crucible of public debate, if this combustible condition was placed in it, and rang the tocsin peal of his voice in the ears of the nation. Although opposed to slavery, and declaring that if he were a citizen of Missouri, he would strenuously oppose any farther introduction of slaves into her, and provide for the emancipation of those already within her borders, still he believed we had no right to compel her to adopt our opinions, especially as she was unrepresented, and preferred leaving the subject of slavery to be settled by her alone.

The condition, however, was made the subject of the most stormy debate in the house, and carried. The bill containing it was sent to the senate, which returned it to the house, after rejecting the condition. Neither house would abandon its opinion, consequently the bill for admitting Missouri was defeated, and unfortunately the question was laid over for the action of the next session. This gave time greatly to augment and embitter the tempest of contention that had been raised over this matter in congress, which soon drew within its eddying vortex, in one fierce wrangle, the _entire people_. Their representatives, on the adjournment of congress, carried the infection among them in every direction, which created the most violent monomania relative to this condition, demanding the sacrifice of ease, domestic avocations, and even health itself. The press reeked with inflammatory appeals, and when they reässembled at the session of 1819–20, they were almost wafted to their seats on the wings of the furious commotion. Under such circumstances the discussion was renewed, which was conducted in such an angry manner as to add fresh fuel to the flame raging without. Resolutions in favor of, and opposed to the condition, were passed by several states, and placed on the tables in congress, which already groaned beneath the ponderous weight of similar documents, from associations and public meetings throughout the country. These, instead of shortening, tended only to prolong the debate. At one time, Mr. Clay spoke about four hours against the condition, but his speech, we regret to say, was never reported. Those who were in favor of subjecting her admission to the specific condition, brought forward the acts of congress passed in connection with the admission of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, into the union, which was coupled with a similar condition, or one even more restrictive in relation to slavery, as proof that it had a right to impose conditions on admitting a state. The principal argument of those opposed to the condition was derived from the constitution, which they contended bestowed on congress no power whatever over slaves, except what had already been exercised, in prohibiting their importation after the year 1808, that the slave states never would have joined the confederacy, if the power now claimed had been conferred by the constitution, that the day when it should be usurped, would be the last of the union, that Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama, had been admitted into the union, unsubjected to any such condition, and that therefore Missouri should also be received on the same ground.

After the smoke of the political battle had somewhat cleared up, the vote was again taken on the question of restriction, which showed a majority in the senate against, and in the house for it. At the same time before congress was an application from Maine for admission to the privileges of a state, which the senate coupled with that of Missouri, but the house refused to sanction the union. Finally, the question was referred to a joint committee from both houses, who attempted to decide it by compromise. By this, Missouri was admitted without restriction, but it was provided ‘that in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby forever prohibited. Provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed, in any state or territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.’

By this act of congress the territory was authorized to frame a constitution and state government, which should not infringe any article of the constitution of the United States, and required to transmit to congress ‘a true and attested copy of the same,’ when a final resolution of congress would be requisite to its admission into the union.

In June, 1820, the territory complied with these conditions, and introduced into her constitution an article making it the duty of the legislature ‘as soon as might be to pass such laws as were necessary to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to and settling in the state under any pretext whatever.’ This clause called forth the most violent censure of the friends of restriction, which caused the flames of contention to burst out anew and with redoubled violence. Mr. Clay found himself, in the autumn of 1820, obliged to resign his seat as speaker, and retire from congress, to repair by the practice of law, his fortune, which had been greatly diminished by heavy losses sustained by his becoming security for a friend.

At the commencement of the session of 1820–21, the constitution of Missouri was placed in the hands of a committee, who reported in favor of her admission. The senate passed an act to that effect, but the house rejected it. The admission of Missouri was opposed on the ground that free people of color were citizens of the state of their residence, and as such they possessed an undoubted right to remove to Missouri, and that her prohibition of their removal within her limits, was a flagrant violation of the constitution of the United States. On the other hand it was maintained that whether bond or free, the African race were not parties to our political institutions, that therefore free negroes and mulattoes were not citizens within the meaning of the constitution of the United States, and that even if the constitution of Missouri _were_ repugnant to that of the United States, the latter was permanent and would overrule the conflicting provision of the former, without the interference of congress.

Such was the question which menaced a disruption of the union. Almost daily, in some form or other, it presented itself, wearing a more threatening aspect at each successive appearance, engendering in the hearts of the two contending parties, feelings of the most bitter animosity, clogging the wheels of government, and effectually impeding, and almost extinguishing all legislative action. Says one familiar with this question, ♦‘popular meetings, legislative resolves, and other demonstrations of feeling and passion were resorted to; crimination and recrimination followed; and separation, disunion, and civil war, with all its infinite of horrors, were the common topics of every village and hamlet. Had a few more materials of excitement been kindled, the work of destruction would have been instant and complete.

In this crisis, when the last fingerings of hope seemed to have departed, that an amicable adjustment of the question would be effected, all eyes were turned towards Mr. Clay, as the only person who could avert the calamities which seemed suspended over the nation. He reached Washington on the sixteenth of January 1821, and found congress in the greatest scene of confusion imaginable. Legislation was absolutely terminated. The most envenomed feelings of hatred rankled in the bosoms of the two parties, who, frowning darkly on each other, bore a stronger resemblance to two belligerent armies, with their weapons in their hands, impatiently waiting for the word to rush into the maddening conflict, than to companies of grave and sober legislators. He was immediately waited on by both parties, who expressed the strongest anxiety that the _vexed question_ might be settled and entreated him to devise some method by which it might be consummated. He expressed his views freely, and urged them to select some common ground on which both parties could meet and harmonize their opinions. On the second day of February, he made a motion to commit the question to a committee of thirteen, to be chosen from both parties, a number suggested by the original states of the union, which was accepted. Mr. Clay, in a report submitted to the house on the tenth of February, by him as chairman of the committee of thirteen, introduced a resolution for the admission of Missouri, on the following conditions:

‘It is provided that the said state shall never pass any law preventing any description of persons from coming to or settling in the said state, who now are or may hereafter become citizens of any of the states of this union, and also that the legislature of the said state by a public act shall declare the assent of the state to this provision, and shall transmit to the president of the United States, on or before the fourth Monday in November next, an authentic copy of the said act, upon the receipt whereof, the president by proclamation shall announce the fact, whereupon and without any farther proceedings on the part of congress, the admission of the said state into the union shall be considered as complete, and it is provided further that nothing herein contained shall be construed to take from the state of Missouri, when admitted into the union, the exercise of any right or power which can now be constitutionally exercised by any of the original states.’ The report was made to include this provision with direct reference to those who opposed the admission in consequence of the repugnance of a clause of the constitution of Missouri to the constitution of the United States, which, if they were sincere in their opposition, would cause them to desist. The house took up the report on the twelfth, when Mr. Clay entered into a minute detail of the deliberations of the committee, the difficulties that attended them, and the causes which led to the adoption of the resolution in the report, and concluded by beseeching them to cherish a feeling of conciliation, and to temper their proceedings by moderation. The report was rejected in committee of the whole on the state of the union, but was afterwards adopted in the house. On the third reading of the resolution, another sharp debate ensued, which was terminated by Mr. Clay, who is represented as having reasoned, remonstrated, and entreated, that the house would settle the question. He is represented as having been almost the only individual who was collected and calm. While others were covered with the foam of fierce debate, and lashed into fury by the combined influences of political or personal animosity, he seemed like one dwelling in the region of perpetual serenity on some lofty mountain, and contemplating unmoved the storm that was raging and bursting around its base. ‘Every darker passion seemed to have died within him, and he looked down upon the maddening and terrific scene with that calm and sublime regret, and gave utterance to his thoughts in that high, majestic, and pathetic eloquence, which seemed almost to designate him as a superior being commissioned by heaven to warn our country against the sin of anarchy and blood.’ The resolution, notwithstanding his exertions, was lost.

On the fourteenth, the two houses met for the purpose of ascertaining the result of an election that had been held for president and vice president, and while the ceremony was being performed, a scene of confusion occurred, on the presentation of the votes of the electors for Missouri. The senate withdrew, and with much difficulty Mr. Clay finally succeeded in restoring order, when the senate, on its being announced to them that the house was ready to complete the business for which they were assembled, returned. On proclaiming the result, it appeared that James Monroe had received two hundred and thirty-one votes, including those of the electors from Missouri, and two hundred and twenty-eight, if these were excluded. While the president of the senate was announcing the result, two members of the house claimed the floor to inquire what disposition had been made of the votes of Missouri, whereupon a scene of confusion and turmoil ensued, that beggars description, and the house was compelled to adjourn, in order to put a period to it.

The rejection of the report of thirteen, both in and out of congress, was regarded as a disaster. Those who had been most active in effecting it, soon began to repent their rashness, and the blackness of despair seemed to be settling down upon the councils of the nation. Mr. Clay sagaciously concluded that the feelings of despondency which they began to evince, would, if allowed to take their course, accomplish what reason, and argument, and philosophy could not; that they would cause the headstrong to reflect, and retrace their steps. He had driven them to the very ‘_ultima thule_’ of argumentative debate, applying the lash of logic at every step, until they had become insensible to its infliction. ‘What is your plan as to Missouri,’ he would say to them. ‘She is no longer a territory. She is a state, whether admitted into the union or not. She is capable of self-government, and she is governing herself. Do you mean to force her permanently from the union? Do you mean to lose the vast public domain which lies within her limits? Do you mean to drive her back to a territorial condition? Do you intend to coërce her to alter her constitution? _How_ will you do all this? Is it your design to employ the bayonet? We tell you frankly our views. They are, to admit her absolutely if we can, and if not, with the condition which we have offered. You are bound to disclose your views with equal frankness. You aspire to be thought statesmen. As sagacious and enlightened statesmen, you should look forward to the fearful future, and let the country understand what is your remedy for the evils which lie before us.’

Various propositions were submitted in both houses, for the purpose of healing the breach which every day seemed to be widening, but all fell short of accomplishing the object. Finally, on the twenty-second, Mr. Clay presented the following resolution:

‘Resolved, that a committee be appointed on the part of the house, jointly with such committee as may be appointed on the part of the senate, to consider and report to the senate and house of representatives respectively, whether it be expedient or not, to make provision for the admission of Missouri into the union, on the same footing as the original states, and for the due execution of the laws of the United States within Missouri, and if not, whether any other, and what provision adapted to her actual condition ought to be made a law.’

This resolution was adopted in the house by a majority of nearly two-thirds, and in the senate by a much larger one. The committee, Mr. Clay proposed, should consist of twenty-three, a number answering to all the states in the union, and so exerted his influence in their selection, as to secure a majority favorable to the settlement of the whole matter, in the manner and form proposed.

The joint committees met on the twenty-fifth of February, 1821, and proceeded to consider and discuss the question of admission. Mr. Clay, with a vigilance that did not slumber for an instant, exerted himself to infuse into the members of the committees a portion of his own conciliatory spirit, exhorting them to mutual concession, and declared that it would be utterly futile to report any plan of adjustment in which they could not unanimously concur, when it should be submitted to the final test. So firmly convinced was he, that the effort which they were then making, was the last feasible one that _could_ be made for the settlement of the question on which they were deliberating, as to cause him to address individually the members of the committees, in order to make such thorough preparation as to preclude the possibility of defeat. And it was found on the next day that such preparation had been made; the resolution was adopted by a vote of eighty-seven to eighty-one in the house, and despatched to the senate, which unhesitatingly agreed to it, and thus the question which had convulsed congress for three sessions, and nearly distracted the land, was at last settled, and mainly through the influence of Mr. Clay. The proclamation of the president was issued, and Missouri took her place among her sisters of the confederacy. This event was greeted with the highest demonstrations of joy, and Missouri, beautiful Missouri, from her majestic forests and broad prairies, from her ancient mounds and mighty rivers, pealed her loud anthems of grateful praise to her and her country’s deliverer, hailing him as the second Washington, as one who had plucked the brand of discord from the hands of ten millions of enraged and exasperated people, and put in its place the olive branch of peace. The incense of exulting hearts was lavished on Mr. Clay like rain. His agency in settling one of the most difficult and dangerous questions that ever has arisen since the adoption of our present constitution, was clearly seen, deeply and gratefully felt, and thus publicly acknowledged. No one then was so blind as not to see that it was his hand that rent the pall of gloom, which enshrouded the whole land. His labors and his incessant and health-destroying toils to bring this question to a happy consummation, constituted a topic of conversation which was in the mouth of every one. Although the journals of the day do not record the many speeches made by him on the occasion, yet it is reported that his exertions in speaking and acting were almost superhuman. If a stranger arrived in Washington, whose influence he thought could be made to bear favorably on the settlement of the question, he instantly endeavored to enlist it. Mr. Clay himself was heard to say, that so intense had become his excitement, and so exhausting his efforts, his life would in all probability have been sacrificed to them, if the admission of Missouri had been delayed a fortnight longer. There is no doubt, that he taxed his patriotism, his eloquence, his philanthropy, his intellect, and his every attribute of mind and body, to the utmost, and strained the bow of life almost to breaking, to accomplish this, and it is saying very little to observe, that a nation’s thanks are his due, and that his signal service, in allaying the most tremendous storm that passion, prejudice, and sectional feeling ever raised, has imposed a debt of gratitude upon her, which posterity alone can pay.

At the time of the greatest turbulence over the Missouri question, when the fury of the contending parties in congress had broken down every barrier of order and decency, and was rushing rampant over the field of debate, certain southern gentlemen in the house, headed by Mr. Randolph, concocted a plan for withdrawing the entire body of members from the slaveholding states, from its deliberations, and abandon the business to the representatives of the other states. Had this been carried out, anarchy, civil war, and the effusion of blood would have followed inevitably. About this time, when an amicable settlement was nearly despaired of, and when the house was in session one evening, Mr. Randolph approached Mr. Clay and said, ‘Mr. speaker, I wish you would leave the house. I will follow you to Kentucky, or any where else in the world.’ Mr. Clay, regarding him with one of his most searching looks for an instant, replied, in an under tone, ‘_Mr. Randolph_, your proposition is an exceedingly serious one, and demands most serious consideration; be kind enough to call at my room to-morrow morning, and we will deliberate over it together.’ Punctual to a minute, Mr. Randolph was there, and closeted with Mr. Clay, discussed for some time the then all absorbing question connected with the admission of Missouri. Mr. Clay maintained, with all the force of his fine colloquial powers, the _plan of compromise_, as the wisest and best which he could suggest, and, in his opinion, that could be suggested, declaring his sincere conviction that the slaveholding states might adopt it, without any sacrifice of principle or interest. On the other hand, Mr. Randolph contended that it could not and would not be adopted; that the slave states occupied a correct position, and would maintain it at all hazards, and would not proceed an inch towards a compromise. They finally separated without agreeing on any thing that was calculated to harmonize their action in congress. ‘Oh! Mr. Randolph,’ said Mr. Clay, as the former was about stepping from the house, ‘Mr. Randolph, with your permission I will embrace the present occasion to observe, that your language and deportment on the floor of the house, it has occurred to me, were rather indecorous and ungentlemanly on several occasions, and very annoying indeed to me, for, being in the chair, I had no opportunity of replying.’ Admitting that such, perhaps, might be the case, Mr. Randolph replied that he too had often been much vexed at witnessing Mr. Clay’s neglect to attend to him when speaking. Said he, ‘I have seen you often, when I have been addressing the chair, I have seen you often turn away your head and ask for a _pinch of snuff_.’ ‘Oh! you are certainly mistaken, Mr. Randolph, you are mistaken if you think I do not listen to you; although I frequently turn away my head, it is true, and ask for a pinch of snuff, still I hear every thing you say, when seeming to hear nothing, and I will wager, retentive as I know your memory to be, Mr. Randolph, _that I can repeat as much of any of your recent speeches as you yourself can_.’ ‘Well, I do not know but I _am_ mistaken,’ he replied, ‘and suppose we drop the matter, shake hands, and become good friends again.’ ‘Agreed,’ said Mr. Clay, and extended his hand, which was cordially embraced by Mr. Randolph. They never spoke to each other, however, during the remainder of the session.

Soon after this meeting, Mr. Clay was successively, and without concert, informed by the late governor Edwards and general C. F. Mercer, the one a senator and the other a member of the house, that Mr. Randolph was present at and witnessed the death scene of the gallant and lamented commodore Decatur, that he remained gazing a long time upon his corpse, agitated with deep emotions, and that he had been heard to express a desire to have, and with Mr. Clay, an affair of honor similar to that which brought Decatur to his untimely end. This information naturally put Mr. Clay upon his guard, and ever after during the session, whenever he met Mr. Randolph, he refrained from addressing him.

It is said that Mr. Randolph used all his influence in trying to induce one of the gentlemen above mentioned not to agree to a settlement of the Missouri question, as he (Mr. Randolph) feared that this, if accomplished as it was desired, would secure Mr. Clay’s election to the presidency.

During the same session, and some time previous to their interview, Mr. Randolph accosted Mr. Clay with a look and manner betokening the deepest concern, exhibiting to him a letter couched in very abusive and insulting terms, threatening to cow-hide him, and asked Mr. Clay’s advice as to the course he should pursue in relation to it. ‘What caused the writer to send you such an insulting epistle, Mr. Randolph?’ said Mr. Clay. ‘Why, I suppose,’ said he, ‘it was in consequence of what I said to him the other day.’ ‘What _did_ you say?’ ‘Why, sir, I was standing in the vestibule of the house, when the writer came up and introduced to me a gentleman who accompanied him, and I asked him what right he had to introduce that man to me, and told him that the man had just as _good a right_ to introduce _him_ to me, whereat he was very indignant, and said I had treated him scandalously, and turning on his heel went away. I expect that made him write the letter.’ ‘Do you not think that he was _a little out of his head to talk in that way_?’ replied Mr. Clay. ‘Why, I have been thinking about that,’ said Mr. Randolph, ‘I _have_ my doubts respecting his sanity.’ ‘Well, that being the case, would it not be the wisest course not to bring the matter before the house? I will direct the sergeant-at-arms to keep a sharp look out for the man, and to cause him to be arrested, should he attempt any thing improper.’ Mr. Randolph expressed his acquiescence in the speaker’s opinion, and nothing more was heard of the subject.

On another occasion, when the same question was before the house, Mr. Randolph informed Mr. Clay that he had come to the conclusion to abandon his invective and caustic irony in debate, and in future to confine himself to pure argument; that he had come to this conclusion in consequence of the advice of chief justice Marshall. He tried pure argument, but was unsuccessful, not awakening any interest in those who listened to him. He finally fell back into his old eccentric, sarcastic track, where he was at home, and crowds flocked to hear him, as usual. In Mr. Randolph’s hands ridicule was a powerful weapon, and one which no member knew how to use better than he, but sound reasoning and logical disquisition he wielded awkwardly――they were untempered weapons when used by him, about as effective as a rush in the hands of a child. One day he came in contact with a very able debater, Mr. Sheffey, one of his colleagues from Virginia, who, in a playful sally, had made some remarks which aroused the irascible temper of Mr. Randolph, who replied to him and concluded by offering him the following _morceau_ of advice. ‘My worthy colleague possesses talents of a high order, but they are not very versatile. They qualify him for a particular sphere only, beyond the limits of which nature never designed him to travel. That sphere is _logic_. In this he can do battle with the boldest, but when he transcends it, he has less power than a pigmy. Therefore, as a friend, I would in the spirit of kindness, advise him _never to leave it for any other_; but especially would I caution him, as he values his reputation and safety, never to venture within the unexplored and unsubjugated regions of wit, for whose labyrinths and intricacies he has neither taste nor talent. As no other motive but a tender solicitude for the gentleman’s welfare, has prompted this advice, I hope it will be received and appreciated accordingly.’ Mr. Sheffey, in reply, remarked that he did not like to remain in Mr. Randolph’s debt, and would therefore cancel the heavy demand which he owed the gentleman, for his exceedingly valuable advice, by returning the compliment. He accordingly advised him never to aspire after logic, as it was an instrument of whose use his ignorance was more than sophomoric, and that in _his_ hand it was like a _knife in the hands of a child_. ‘In my opinion, from the armory of wit the facetious member may draw weapons every way adapted to his capacity, and I would therefore advise him never to resort to any other.’ When he concluded, Mr. Randolph sprang to his feet, and in his quick, off-hand way, said, ‘I will take back all that I have said, by way of advice, to my colleague, for he has given satisfactory evidence that he is a man both of logic and wit.’ The incident furnished much mirth to the house. The next day, Mr. Randolph recommenced the attack with increased bitterness, and was called to order several times by Mr. Clay, who, after repeated trials, succeeded in checking him. Mr. Sheffey was much excited, and was called to order also, when Mr. Clay observed that he would be out of order in replying, as he was, to any other member, except Mr. Randolph.

At one time, Mr. Randolph, in a strain of most scorching irony, had indulged in some personal taunts towards Mr. Clay, commiserating his ignorance and limited education, to whom Mr. Clay replied by saying, ‘sir, the gentleman from Virginia was pleased to say, that in one point, at least, he coincided with me――in an humble estimate of my grammatical and philological acquirements. I know my deficiences. I was born to no proud patrimonial estate from my father. I inherited only infancy, ignorance, and indigence; I feel my defects; but so far as my situation in early life is concerned, I may without presumption say, they are more my misfortune than my fault. But, however I deplore my inability to furnish to the gentleman a better specimen of powers of verbal criticism, I will venture to say my regret is not greater than the disappointment of this committee, as to the _strength of his argument_.’

The following incident aptly illustrates Mr. Clay’s readiness at repartee. At the time of the passage of the tariff bill, April sixteenth, 1824, as the house was about adjourning, a friend of the bill observed to Mr. Clay, ‘we have done pretty well to-day.’ ‘Very well, indeed,’ rejoined Mr. Clay, instantly, ‘_very well_; we made a good stand, considering we lost both our FEET;’ alluding to Mr. Foote, of New York, and Mr. Foot, of Connecticut, both having opposed the bill, who it was confidently expected but a short time previous would support it.

During Mr. Clay’s absence from congress, which, as has been before stated, was occasioned to furnish him an opportunity to repair pecuniary losses, he was appointed, in connection with Mr. Bibb, to attend the Virginia legislature, for the purpose of adjusting certain Kentuckian land claims. The land laws of Kentucky were a source of great perplexity and litigation, subjecting those who had settled there prior to her separation from Virginia, to great inconvenience and loss. In his appeal to the general assembly of Virginia, Mr. Clay manifested unusual anxiety to protect the interests of the occupants of the soil, in the state from which he was a delegate, and succeeded in awakening a corresponding feeling of sympathy in the hearts of those whom he addressed. He drew a vivid picture of the privations and hardships which the settler had to encounter, placed him before them in the attitude of bidding adieu to the ‘tombs and temples of his fathers,’ then followed him to the wilderness, and traced his toilsome progress, step by step, until he brought him to the period when he began to reap the reward of his labors. He exhibited him sitting at twilight in the door of his comfortable tenement, looking out upon his broad enclosures, the happy partner of his cares by his side, and his dear little ones enjoying their innocent pastimes around him, and almost made them see the heavings of his grateful heart, and the moistening of his eye, as he surveyed the abundance of domestic bliss, and peace, and plenty, which his industrious hand had gathered about him. This, said Mr. Clay, is the bright side of the picture; now let us look at the dark; and then, in his solemn, impressive, and inimitably graphic manner, with a quivering lip, and a hand tremulous with emotion, he pointed to the same group, yet he painted no happy look, he caused no shout of sportive joy to ascend, but he rendered audible the deep sigh, the suffocating sob, and piercing groan; he made almost visible the furrowed brow of toil-worn manhood wet with the dew of despair, a broken-hearted wife drowned in grief, surrounded by sorrowing childhood, all fixing a last look upon a home dear to them as their lives, as they were about to depart to rear a new abode in the uninviting wilderness. This is no picture of a heated imagination, said Mr. Clay, it is suggested by scenes of almost every day occurrence, and it is to _prevent_ their occurrence that prompts us to attempt the adjustment of these conflicting ‘land claims.’ Equity, humanity, and benevolence, all urge this; they all mingle their voices of mercy, and beseech that when the settler has by his honest and industrious efforts acquired the comforts and blessings of social and domestic life, he shall be permitted to enjoy them, and not be in danger of being dispossessed by a prior claim to his domain, and of which he was ignorant. In one of his most pathetic strains, he attempted to quote the affecting lines of sir Walter Scott:

‘Lives there a heart so cold and dead,
That never to itself hath said――
This is my own, my native land!’

He commenced, but could not finish them; some words had escaped his memory, but without the least hesitation he pressed his hand upon his forehead a moment, in recalling them. All believed that this momentary hesitation was caused by the recollections of other years, which were swelling in his heart and checking utterance, and when he withdrew his hand from his brow and cast his tearful eyes over the assembly, and in his impassioned manner repeated the lines, there was one general gushing of tears, as if all hearts had been melted beneath his look and tone.

In the course of the year, Mr. Clay, in behalf of Kentucky, and B. W. Leigh, Esq., in behalf of Virginia, met at Ashland, and concluded a convention, which was ratified by the legislature of Kentucky, and by the house of delegates of Virginia, but was rejected in her senate, by a small majority.

Mr. Clay had now, during his three years absence from congress, realized his wishes in repairing his pecuniary losses, and at the earnest and repeated requests of his fellow citizens, accepted a renomination, and was again elected without opposition a member of the house of representatives.

In consequence of intense application to his professional duties, Mr. Clay’s health had become materially impaired; indeed his life was despaired of. During the summer of 1823, he had visited, without receiving much benefit, the Olympian Springs, in Kentucky, and submitted to a thorough course of medicine, but all remedial means failed to arrest what appeared to be a gradual decline, which was conducting him apparently rapidly to the period of his dissolution. He began to think seriously, as a last resort, on going south to spend the ensuing winter, but it was requisite for him to be in Washington in November, and his own feelings inclined him to be there at the commencement of the session, in case it were practicable. He finally, after consulting with his friends, abandoned the prescriptions of his physicians, procured a light carriage and a good saddle-horse, and riding, driving, and walking, leisurely made his way to the seat of government. When he reached Washington, he was nearly well.

At the opening of the eighteenth congress, on the first Monday of December, 1823, Mr. Clay was elected speaker to the house, over Mr. Barbour, of Virginia, the late speaker, by a vote of one hundred and thirty-nine to forty-two. Shortly after his election, the following beautiful _jeu d’esprit_ appeared in the National Intelligencer.

“As near the Potomac’s broad stream, t’other day,
Fair _Liberty_ strolled in solicitous mood,
Deep-pondering the future, unheeding her way,
She met goddess _Nature_ beside a green wood.
‘Good mother,’ she cried, ‘deign to help me at need!
I must make for my guardians a _Speaker_ to-day;
The first in the world I would give them.’ ‘Indeed!
When I made the first speaker, I made him of _Clay_.’”

Mr. Clay accepted the appointment in a brief but pertinent speech, in which he gave a succinct view of the duties of the chair, and presented the house his thanks for placing him in it.

In the course of the session, the subject of the Greek revolution came before congress. Mr. Webster, of Massachusetts, on the fifth of December, introduced it to the house, in a resolution ‘providing by law for defraying the expenses incident to the appointment of an agent or commissioner to Greece, whenever the president shall deem it expedient to make such appointment.’ This he sustained by a speech of great power. Mr. Clay brought to its support the same feelings, the same warm sympathies, and the same strength of argument that he had arrayed round the subject of South American independence. They both fought hard to procure the adoption of this resolution, but it was lost. The struggling Greek, however, Mr. Clay never lost sight of, and when he became secretary of state, succeeded in accomplishing that for them, in which he was defeated now.

While the question of recognition was before the house, Mr. Clay was violently assailed by a member from New Hampshire, recently arrived. It was thought his motive in doing this was to bring himself into notice, by attacking the most distinguished man in the house. He received such a rebuke from Mr. Clay, administered with mingled feelings of indignation and pity, as almost to wither his energies during the remainder of the session.

It will be recollected, that during this session, the great tariff measure was passed. An incident grew out of Mr. Clay’s exertions in its behalf, which occasioned no little amusement in Washington, at the time, and throughout Virginia. Mr. William B. Giles, since governor of Virginia, on the appearance of Mr. Clay’s tariff speech, published several articles entitled ‘The Golden Casket,’ in which he introduced Mr. Clay’s name pretty often, and in no very courteous connection. The articles were of course perused by Mr. Clay, who, aware of the foibles of their author, took no serious offence thereat, but set to work to manufacture amusement from them. He sat down in a comic mood one day, and wrote Mr. Giles a long letter, complimenting him on the vigor of his intellect, his great mental ability, and his accurate critical acumen, but praising him especially for those qualities of which he was utterly destitute. When it was completed, he showed it to Mr. Archer, of Virginia, and several other friends, all of whom enjoyed it immoderately, and urged him to send it to Mr. Giles, and accordingly he sent it. As had been anticipated, the old gentleman devoured it with the greatest gusto and satisfaction. It contained just what he most desired――praise of his weakest traits of character. He read it repeatedly, and at each successive reading his heart relented towards the author, to such a degree as to cause him to observe, that had he received the communication previous to the publication of his ‘_Casket_,’ he should not have spoken of Mr. Clay as he did in that work. Shortly after, he exhibited this letter to some of his intimate friends, to let them see in what high estimation he was held by the great orator and statesman, but unfortunately nearly the first one who read it, discovered the hoax played on him, and immediately circulated it. Curiosity to see the letter now pervaded the whole community, and some difference of opinion prevailed as to its true character. A few of Mr. Giles’ friends expressed their belief that it had been written in good faith, but most that it was intended for a joke at his expense. Quite a violent dispute grew out of it; one party instigated by angry, and the other by mirthful feelings. At length, Mr. Archer, who resided in the same district with Mr. Giles, returned from congress, and the true version of the matter was soon trumpeted through the community, which caused unusual merriment. This was too much for Mr. Giles, who sent his son, a lad of sixteen years of age, to demand an explanation of Mr. Clay. He received the boy very civilly, who made known to Mr. Clay the nature of his business, saying that he was commissioned by his father to ask if he were the author of that letter, at the same time exhibiting to him the famous epistle, and if he were, to demand his motives in writing it. When he had concluded his interrogations, Mr. Clay coolly replied, ‘tell your father that I shall make no explanation to him through his own son. If he will employ a proper messenger, I will render him another answer.’ The lad departed, and nothing more was heard from Mr. Giles.

On the fifteenth of August, 1824, general Lafayette, the nation’s guest, arrived at New York, and on the tenth of December following, was introduced to the house of representatives by a select committee appointed for the purpose, and was received by Mr. Clay, in an apposite and beautiful address, of which the following is an extract. ‘The vain wish has been sometimes indulged, that providence would allow the patriot after death, to return to his country, and to contemplate the intermediate change that had taken place, to view the forests felled, the cities built, the mountains levelled, the canals cut, the highways constructed, the progress of the arts, the advancement of learning, and the increase of population. General, your present visit to the United States, is a realization of the consoling object of that wish. You are in the midst of posterity. Every where you must have been struck with the great changes, physical and moral, which have occurred since you left us. Even this city, bearing a venerated name, alike endeared to you and to us, has since emerged from the forest which then covered its site. In one respect you find us unaltered, and that is, in the sentiment of continued devotion to liberty, and of ardent affection and profound gratitude to your departed friend, the father of his country, and to you, and to your illustrious associates in the field and the cabinet, for the multiplied blessings which surround us, and for the very privilege of addressing you, which I now exercise. This sentiment, now fondly cherished by more than ten millions of people, will be transmitted with unabated vigor, down the tide of time, through the countless millions who are destined to inhabit this continent, to the latest posterity.’

To this address, the general replied in a manner which evinced that he had been most deeply affected by it; indeed, it was calculated to thrill his heart with proud joy, conveying to him as it did a rich tribute of gratitude from a mighty nation, expressed in the full, silvery voice of sincerity and affection, whose every tone sank into his soul with the power of a warm welcome. He contracted a strong attachment for Mr. Clay, which existed to the day of his death.

At this period, Mr. Clay’s influence had reached a commanding height. His control over the legislation of the United States, was unquestionably greater than that of any other individual, not even excepting the executive himself. Although Mr. Clay disagreed with president Monroe on the great measures of national policy, internal improvements, and the tariff, and also respecting the mode of recognizing South American independence, still, the latter, entertaining the most profound regard for his ability, and appreciating the value of his services to his country, repeatedly offered him a seat in his cabinet, and the choice of all the foreign missions. Justice to Mr. Clay’s disinterested patriotism demands it to be recorded, that his honest conviction, that he could be more serviceable to his country by remaining in her popular assembly, than in representing her abroad, was one of the most weighty motives which prevented him from planting his foot upon one of the many stepping-stones, to place and power, which the hand of executive favor had, unsolicited, laid before him. The differences of opinion existing between him and Mr. Monroe, never interrupted for a moment, the amicable relations of social intercourse which they mutually maintained.

Towards the close of his second term, which expired in 1825, the question of the next presidency was generally agitated. As candidates for this office, Messrs. J. Q. Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William H. Crawford, had been brought forward by their respective friends. As early as November, 1822, in a meeting of the members of the legislature of Kentucky, Mr. Clay had been nominated to it, and a short time after, he was nominated also in meetings of the members of the legislatures of Missouri, Ohio, and Louisiana. Enthusiastic expressions, approbating this nomination, issued from large assemblies throughout the land, and as the period for the election approached, there were many cheering indications that it would be carried in his favor. But efforts were resorted to, not the most creditable to those who employed them, for the purpose of defeating his election. About the commencement of the canvass, reports were industriously circulated, calculated to diminish his support. Among them was one announcing his withdrawal from the contest, for which the unscrupulous exertions of many of his opponents gained extensive credence, notwithstanding our late lamented chief magistrate, and many other friends of Mr. Clay in Ohio, published a counter report, declaring that he ‘_would not_ be withdrawn from the contest but by the fiat of his Maker.’ The probabilities, however, of his success, continued to increase, until the time of the choice of electors in Louisiana, by the legislature of that state. In that body, Mr. Clay’s popularity was such as to secure him the vote of the state; this was evident from the fact of his nomination by it. The members of the legislature friendly towards the other candidates, endeavored to effect a compromise with those who supported Mr. Clay; but the latter, aware of their strength, rejected it. The compromise proposed to give him four of the five electoral votes to which the state was entitled, which would have carried him into the house of representatives, to the exclusion of Mr. Crawford, as one of the highest three candidates, from which, according to the constitution, it would be obliged to make a selection. Unfortunately, about the time when the state of Louisiana made choice of her electors, three of Mr. Clay’s friends became so seriously indisposed, as to preclude their attendance on the legislature. This event furnished the friends of Mr. Adams and general Jackson an opportunity to form a coälescence, which they eagerly embraced, and divided the five votes so as to give the former three and the latter two. This consequently excluded Mr. Clay from the house, into which, had he gone, there is no doubt that his unbounded popularity in that body would have secured his election to the office. When, however, it became apparent, that no election of president would be made by the people, with a nobleness and a nice sense of honor, so characteristic of him, he resolved not to go into the house, but to withdraw his name, and at a time too when the prospect was of his being one of the highest three candidates. With great magnanimity, therefore, he put into execution his resolution, assigning to several of his intimate friends his reasons, among which was the belief, that by his doing so, the choice would be more readily and pacifically made. Such generous and self-sacrificing conduct, while it illustrates the purity and strength of his patriotism, is worthy of all admiration and commendation.

Near the close of December, 1824, the result of the canvass was ascertained, by which it appeared that the three candidates returned to the house, were Andrew Jackson, John Q. Adams, and W. H. Crawford, by votes of ninety-nine, eighty-four, and forty-one.