The Project Gutenberg eBook of Henry Clay's Remarks in House and Senate, by Henry Clay

Published：2026-07-30 01:16:15 Source: best spelling games for 10 year olds under 25 dollars Author: Ride-Ons

Produced by Anthony J. Adam

  Henry Clay,sensory toys for autism "On the Seminole War,"
  U.S. House of Representatives
  19 January 1819.

  Henry Clay, "On the Expunging Resolutions,"
  U.S. Senate
  16 January 1837

Part 1

  Henry Clay, "On the Expunging Resolutions,"
  U.S. Senate,
  16 January 1837

Mr. President:

WHAT patriotic purpose is to be accomplished by this Expungingresolution? What new honor or fresh laurels will it win for our commoncountry? Is the power of the Senate so vast that it ought to becircumscribed, and that of the President so restricted that it ought tobe extended? What power has the Senate? None, separately. It canonly act jointly with the other House, or jointly with the Executive.And although the theory of the Constitution supposes, when consulted byhim, it may freely give an affirmative or negative response, accordingto the practice, as it now exists, it has lost the faculty ofpronouncing the negative monosyllable. When the Senate expresses itsdeliberate judgment, in the form of resolution, that resolution has nocompulsory force, but appeals only to the dispassionate intelligence,the calm reason, and the sober judgment, of the community. The Senatehas no army, no navy, no patronage, no lucrative offices, no glitteringhonors, to bestow. Around us there is no swarm of greedy expectants,rendering us homage, anticipating our wishes, and ready to execute ourcommands.

How is it with the President? Is he powerless? He is felt from oneextremity to the other of this vast Republic. By means of principleswhich he has introduced, and innovations which he has made in ourinstitutions, alas! but too much countenanced by Congress and aconfiding people, he exercises, uncontrolled, the power of the State.In one hand he holds the purse, and in the other brandishes the swordof the country. Myriads of dependants and partisans, scattered overthe land, are ever ready to sing hosannas to him, and to laud to theskies whatever he does. He has swept over the government, during thelast eight years, like a tropical tornado. Every department exhibitstraces of the ravages of the storm. Take as one example the Bank ofthe United States. No institution could have been more popular withthe people, with Congress, and with State Legislatures. None everbetter fulfilled the great purposes of its establishment. But itunfortunately incurred the displeasure of the President; he spoke, andthe bank lies prostrate. And those who were loudest in its praise arenow loudest in its condemnation. What object of his ambition isunsatisfied? When disabled from age any longer to hold the sceptre ofpower, he designates his successor, and transmits it to his favorite!What more does he want? Must we blot, deface, and mutilate the recordsof the country, to punish the presumptuousness of expressing an opinioncontrary to his own? What patriotic purpose is to be accomplished bythis Expunging resolution? Can you make that not to be which has been?Can you eradicate from memory and from history the fact that in March,1834, a majority of the Senate of the United States passed theresolution which excites your enmity? Is it your vain and wickedobject to arrogate to yourselves that power of annihilating the pastwhich has been denied to Omnipotence itself? Do you intend to thrustyour hands into our hearts, and to pluck out the deeply rootedconvictions which are there? Or is it your design merely to stigmatizeus? You cannot stigmatize us.

"Ne'er yet did base dishonor blur our name."

Standing securely upon our conscious rectitude, and bearing aloft theshield of the Constitution of our country, your puny efforts areimpotent; and we defy all your power. Put the majority of 1834 in onescale, and that by which this Expunging resolution is to be carried inthe other, and let truth and justice, in heaven above and on earthbelow, and liberty and patriotism, decide the preponderance.

What patriotic purpose is to be accomplished by the Expungingresolution? Is it to appease the wrath and to heal the wounded prideof the Chief Magistrate? If he be really the hero that his friendsrepresent him, he must despise all mean condescension, all grovellingsycophancy, all self-degradation and self-abasement. He would reject,with scorn and contempt, as unworthy of his fame, your black scratchesand your baby lines in the fair records of his country. Black lines!Black lines! Sir, I hope the Secretary of the Senate will preserve thepen with which he may inscribe them, and present it to that Senator ofthe majority whom he may select, as a proud trophy, to be transmittedto his descendants. And hereafter, when we shall lose the forms of ourfree institutions, all that now remain to us, some future Americanmonarch, in gratitude to those by whose means he has been enabled, uponthe ruins of civil liberty, to erect a throne, and to commemorateespecially this Expunging resolution, may institute a new order ofknighthood, and confer on it the appropriate name of "the Knights ofthe Black Lines."

But why should I detain the Senate, or needlessly waste my breath infruitless exertions? The decree has gone forth. It is one of urgency,too. The deed is to be done—that foul deed which, like the blood,staining the hands of the guilty Macbeth, all ocean's waters willnever wash out. Proceed, then, to the noble work which lies beforeyou, and, like other skilful executioners, do it quickly. And whenyou have perpetrated it, go home to the people, and tell them whatglorious honors you have achieved for our common country. Tell themthat you have extinguished one of the brightest and purest lights thatever burned at the altar of civil liberty. Tell them that you havesilenced one of the noblest batteries that ever thundered in defence ofthe Constitution, and bravely spiked the cannon. Tell them that,henceforward, no matter what daring or outrageous act any president mayperform, you have forever hermetically sealed the mouth of the Senate.Tell them that he may fearlessly assume what powers he pleases, snatchfrom its lawful custody the public purse, command a military detachmentto enter the halls of the Capitol, overawe Congress, trample down theConstitution, and raze every bulwark of freedom; but that the Senatemust stand mute, in silent submission, and not dare to raise itsopposing voice. Tell them that it must wait until a House ofRepresentatives, humbled and subdued like itself, and a majority of itcomposed of the partisans of the President, shall prefer articles ofimpeachment. Tell them, finally, that you have restored the gloriousdoctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance. And, if the peopledo not pour out their indignation and imprecations, I have yet to learnthe character of American freemen.

* * * *

Part 2

Henry Clay, "On the Seminole War," U.S. House of Representatives, 19 January 1819.

IF MY recollection does not deceive me, Bonaparte had passed the Rhineand the Alps, had conquered Italy, the Netherlands, Holland, Hanover,Lubec, and Hamburg, and extended his empire as far as Altona, on theside of Denmark. A few days' march would have carried him throughHolstein, over the two Belts, through Funen, and into the island ofZealand. What, then, was the conduct of England? It was my lot tofall into conversation with an intelligent Englishman on this subject."We knew (said he) that we were fighting for our existence. It wasabsolutely necessary that we should preserve the command of the seas.If the fleet of Denmark fell into the enemy's hands, combined with hisother fleets, that command might be rendered doubtful. Denmark hadonly a nominal independence. She was, in truth, subject to his sway.We said to her, Give us your fleet; it will otherwise be takenpossession of by your secret and our open enemy. We will preserve itand restore it to you whenever the danger shall be over. Denmarkrefused. Copenhagen was bombarded, and gallantly defended, but thefleet was seized." Everywhere the conduct of England was censured; andthe name even of the negotiator who was employed by her, who wassubsequently the minister near this government, was scarcely everpronounced here without coupling with it an epithet indicating hisparticipation in the disgraceful transaction. And yet we are going tosanction acts of violence, committed by ourselves, which but too muchresemble it! What an important difference, too, between the relativecondition of England and of this country! She, perhaps, was strugglingfor her existence. She was combating, single-handed, the most enormousmilitary power that the world has ever known. With whom were wecontending? With a few half-starved, half-clothed, wretched Indiansand fugitive slaves. And while carrying on this inglorious war,inglorious as regards the laurels or renown won in it, we violateneutral rights, which the government had solemnly pledged itself torespect, upon the principle of convenience, or upon the lightpresumption that, by possibility, a post might be taken by thismiserable combination of Indians and slaves….

I will not trespass much longer upon the time of the committee; but Itrust I shall be indulged with some few reflections upon the danger ofpermitting the conduct on which it has been my painful duty toanimadvert, to pass without the solemn expression of the disapprobationof this House. Recall to your recollection the free nations which havegone before us. Where are they now?

"Gone glimmering through the dream of things that were, A schoolboy'stale, the wonder of an hour."

And how have they lost their liberties? If we could transportourselves back to the ages when Greece and Rome flourished in theirgreatest prosperity, and, mingling in the throng, should ask a Grecianif he did not fear that some daring military chieftain, covered withglory, some Philip or Alexander, would one day overthrow the libertiesof his country, the confident and indignant Grecian would exclaim, No!no! we have nothing to fear from our heroes; our liberties will beeternal. If a Roman citizen had been asked if he did not fear that theconqueror of Gaul might establish a throne upon the ruins of publicliberty, he would have instantly repelled the unjust insinuation. YetGreece fell; Caesar passed the Rubicon, and the patriotic arm even ofBrutus could not preserve the liberties of his devoted country! Thecelebrated Madame de Stael, in her last and perhaps her best work, hassaid, that in the very year, almost the very month, when the presidentof the Directory declared that monarchy would never more show itsfrightful head in France, Bonaparte, with his grenadiers, entered thepalace of St. Cloud, and, dispersing with the bayonet the deputies ofthe people deliberating on the affairs of the State, laid thefoundation of that vast fabric of despotism which overshadowed allEurope. I hope not to be misunderstood; I am far from intimating thatGeneral Jackson cherishes any designs inimical to the liberties of thecountry. I believe his intentions to be pure and patriotic. I thankGod that he would not, but I thank him still more that he could not ifhe would, overturn the liberties of the Republic. But precedents, ifbad, are fraught with the most dangerous consequences. Man has beendescribed, by some of those who have treated of his nature, as a bundleof habits. The definition is much truer when applied to governments.Precedents are their habits. There is one important difference betweenthe formation of habits by an individual and by governments. Hecontracts only after frequent repetition. A single instance fixes thehabit and determines the direction of governments. Against thealarming doctrine of unlimited discretion in our military commanderswhen applied even to prisoners of war, I must enter my protest. Itbegins upon them; it will end on us. I hope our happy form ofgovernment is to be perpetual. But, if it is to be preserved, it mustbe by the practice of virtue, by justice, by moderation, bymagnanimity, by greatness of soul, by keeping a watchful and steady eyeon the Executive; and, above all, by holding to a strict accountabilitythe military branch of the public force.

We are fighting a great moral battle for the benefit not only of ourcountry, but of all mankind. The eyes of the whole world are in fixedattention upon us. One, and the larger portion of it, is gazing withcontempt, with jealousy, and with envy; the other portion, with hope,with confidence, and with affection. Everywhere the black cloud oflegitimacy is suspended over the world, save only one bright spot,which breaks out from the political hemisphere of the West, toenlighten and animate and gladden the human heart. Obscure that by thedownfall of liberty here, and all mankind are enshrouded in a pall ofuniversal darkness. To you, Mr. Chairman, belongs the high privilegeof transmitting, unimpaired, to posterity the fair character andliberty of our country. Do you expect to execute this high trust bytrampling, or suffering to be trampled down, law, justice, theConstitution, and the rights of the people? by exhibiting examples ofinhumanity and cruelty and ambition? When the minions of despotismheard, in Europe, of the seizure of Pensacola, how did they chuckle,and chide the admirers of our institutions, tauntingly pointing to thedemonstration of a spirit of injustice and aggrandizement made by ourcountry, in the midst of an amicable negotiation! Behold, said they,the conduct of those who are constantly reproaching kings! You saw howthose admirers were astounded and hung their heads. You saw, too, whenthat illustrious man, who presides over us, adopted his pacific,moderate, and just course, how they once more lifted up their headswith exultation and delight beaming in their countenances. And you sawhow those minions themselves were finally compelled to unite in thegeneral praises bestowed upon our government. Beware how you forfeitthis exalted character. Beware how you give a fatal sanction, in thisinfant period of our Republic, scarcely yet twoscore years old, tomilitary insubordination. Remember that Greece had her Alexander, Romeher Caesar, England her Cromwell, France her Bonaparte, and that if wewould escape the rock on which they split we must avoid their errors.

How different has been the treatment of General Jackson and thatmodest, but heroic young man, a native of one of the smallest States inthe Union, who achieved for his country, on Lake Erie, one of the mostglorious victories of the late war. In a moment of passion he forgothimself and offered an act of violence which was repented of as soon asperpetrated. He was tried, and suffered the judgment to be pronouncedby his peers. Public justice was thought not even then to besatisfied. The press and Congress took up the subject. My honorablefriend from Virginia, Mr. Johnson, the faithful and consistent sentinelof the law and of the Constitution, disapproved in that instance, as hedoes in this, and moved an inquiry. The public mind remained agitatedand unappeased until the recent atonement, so honorably made by thegallant commodore. And is there to be a distinction between theofficers of the two branches of the public service? Are formerservices, however eminent, to preclude even inquiry into recentmisconduct? Is there to be no limit, no prudential bounds to thenational gratitude? I am not disposed to censure the President for notordering a court of inquiry, or a general court-martial. Perhaps,impelled by a sense of gratitude, he determined, by anticipation, toextend to the general that pardon which he had the undoubted right togrant after sentence. Let us not shrink from our duty. Let us assertour constitutional powers, and vindicate the instrument from militaryviolation.

I hope gentlemen will deliberately survey the awful isthmus on which westand. They may bear down all opposition; they may even vote thegeneral the public thanks; they may carry him triumphantly through thisHouse. But, if they do, in my humble judgment, it will be a triumph ofthe principle of insubordination, a triumph of the military over thecivil authority, a triumph over the powers of this House, a triumphover the Constitution of the land. And I pray most devoutly to Heaventhat it may not prove, in its ultimate effects and consequences, atriumph over the liberties of the people.

Related articles