Salamis, and preserved his country. But to the fertile genius, vast sagacity and large patriotism of Themistocles, Henry Clay has added the justice of his rival, Aristides, the frankness of Cato, the daring of Cæsar, the eloquence of Tully. He never failed a friend or fled a foe. When the storm was wildest, his voice had been heard loudest. When the battle was hottest, he has ever stood in the front of the column. His path has led him through many a difficulty and danger. At times, he might have complained of ingratitude and obloquy. Once it seemed as if he was destined to go down to his grave with a cloud on his fame.

But, for all this, he never wavered or hesitated for one moment in his onward course. Ever bearing a high heart under adversity, he has stood erect in the darkest hours of the Republic, and kept alive the spirit of liberty, and of resistance to tyranny and oppression. Many of those who started with him at the outset of his career have fainted by the way-side, or wandered away from their principles; but he has been

He has now grown gray in the public service, and, in the nature of things, cannot remain much longer on the stage of action. And will you permit him to go down into his grave without bestowing on him the highest honors in the gift of the nation? Will you retain the memorials of his great spirit, in the shape of countless benefits, and turn your back on the giver? From present indications, should Prov-. idence permit him to live, we shall not long bear such a reproach. Sir, men have lived perhaps, who were as much admired, who excited as much enthusiasm among their contemporaries, but they were men who had won renown in camps. Their laurels were stained with blood. The red glare of battles was on them. No mere civic chieftain ever before excited such enthusiastic ardor in the minds of his countrymen. It is a compliment to the genius of this age, which prefers the civil virtues to mere military glory. And, with such principles and such a man, what have we to dread?

The gentleman from Ohio tells the Democracy to fear not; that they will carry nineteen States. From the account which he gives us of their defeat in 1840, I take this to be a most extravagant boast on his part. But he complains of our having used new and extraordinary means in the contest. We brought to bear against them, it seems, a novel invention of modern warfare, the log cabin. Sir, I have heard of troops that could not resist a charge of the bayonet, and of some that could not stand fire at all; but the gentleman's Democrats were really a peculiar set of soldiers. We did not use against them Paixhan guns, or even torpedoes. The rattling of a coon skin put them to flight. According to the gentleman, they stood arrayed like the Mace

donian phalanx, but a cup of hard cider was presented, and they went down before it.

The gentleman, I do not question, has good reason to complain of and denounce this last weapon, as many of his allies have doubtless fallen under it. I will put a question to the gentleman, the answer to which I hope he will calculate in figures. If his army of Democrats were totally defeated in 1840, by log cabins, hard cider and coon skins, used against them by one who, according to the gentleman's own declarations at that time, was an old dotard, kept in a cage, who was so great a coward that he ran away from every battle that he ever heard of, and whose most appropriate dress was a flannel petticoat, how long will that army be able to stand up against the strength and spirit of the great Whig party of this day, led on by the first man of the age? Upon what does the gentleman build his hope of success? Ah, but he says British gold was used to buy up votes. Well, sir, I perceive, from the newspapers, that money is unusually plenty in England at this time, and I have no doubt that his Democrats want it just as much now as they did four years ago. But we used log cabins; and will our forests not furnish us with materials to build them this year? Then there were coon skins in 1840. Yes, and the requisite num. ber can be procured again. Worst of all, however, was the hard cider. I tell him it will flow like water this year, and it will become very hard to Democratic palates by next November.

To be serious, however, Mr. Speaker, let me tell the member from Ohio, that he does great injustice to his party, when he says it was thus defeated. I have no doubt but that he is extremely anxious to create the impression that nothing more serious could be brought against it, and that its overthrow was entirely owing to these means. No, sir; you might as well say that Niagara's current owes its power and rapidity to the bubbles that float on its surface. All these things were but emblems, borne upon the vast popular current. The large expenditures of that administration, its profligacy, its keeping defaulters in its bosom for years after their crimes were known, its patronage, and proscription, its army bill, its sub-treasury, giving the president the money power of the nation, and grinding the people in the dust under its hard money system, its general contempt of the will of the people, these things beat the gentleman's party, and they will beat it again. Yes, sir, they will beat it again. Already dismay begins to be visible in the faces of the members of the party here, and some of them are attributing the strong current against them to Mr. Van Buren's unpopularity. I have heard it suggested in some quarters that that has happened to him which frequently occurs to old horses: that, after having been once distanced, have been off the turf a long while, that he has broken down in his second training. If it be, then, true that he is off his legs, select another horse. We are not very particular as to who may be our antagonist. I regard Mr. Van Buren as a quiet, rather timid man, of little will of his own, and inclined to go with the current of his party. These features in his character make him the worst man of all, if elected. He is the instrument of an irresponsible body of

men, that always has less moderation, less fairness, and less conscience, than a single individual, whatever may be his disposition naturally, feels bound, by a regard for public opinion, to manifest. Mr. Calhoun, if elected, would be, in many respects, vastly superior. He has talents, strength of will, and pride of character, and feeling conscious that the eye of the nation was fixed on him, we should have less to dread. If, however, rumor is to be credited, he was, a few weeks since, bartered away by his partizans in Virginia, with the concurrence of some elsewhere, to Mr. Van Buren, for a share, in prospect, of the spoils of the next presidential canvass. Being strongly tempted by the glittering bait, it seems they came to the conclusion that they could make the most of him by such a sale. In contemplating these individuals, one is irresistibly forced to think of the Swiss soldiers of the middle, ages, who changed sides as often as a better bid was offered.

By means of the caucus system, the partisans of Mr. Van Buren have killed off all the other prominent men of the party, and it is now too late to select another leader. When we are charging you at the point of the bayonet, you will have no time to change commanders. If you think you can, try it. We care not who is your leader; we shall have the same principles and the same men to contend against, and we shall be at you far more easily than we did before. The nation, relieved from your disastrous measures, and aided by a partial adoption of ours, is recovering from its former ruinous condition, and it never will consent to come under your dominion again. Talk of the campaign of 1840, as if it had exhausted our energies! Our ancestors struggled through seven campaigns, to achieve our independence, and we, their descendants, taught that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, can, if necessary, go through seventy more campaigns like that of 1840. But we are taunted, from time to time, with our small numbers on this floor. Sir, the organization of this House affords no index of the popular sentiment of the nation. North Carolina is represented by a majority of Democrats here; but let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Whig majority in my district is large enough, if it had been distributed over the State at the last election, to have given us an unanimous representation on this floor. And, still, there is another district in North Carolina stronger even in Whigism than the one I am so proud to represent. Though in this House we are but as one man, out of it we are a thousand. The bone and sinew of the country, the strength and spirit of the nation are with us. We have the gray-haired veteran to plan, the generous youth to execute, and the smiles of the fair ladies to cheer us on; and shall we not conquer? The noble banner we have raised we shall maintain at all hazards. We shall bear it high above the tumult, above the dust, and out of danger. And, with the favor of Providence, under its folds we shall win another victory not less brilliant and glorious than that of 1840, and I trust far richer in its benefits to the country.

NOTE.

The course of the Whigs on this bill of Duncan's shows with how little wisdom men often act. Because Duncan, a Democrat, offered it, the Whigs resisted and defeated it. Had it then been passed, it is almost certain that

Mr. Clay would have been elected. The States at that time voted on various days as each one chose to do, and it so happened that several of those adverse to Mr. Clay voted early and thus tended to weaken him. The great shout raised by the anxious multitude assembled at the wharf in New York, when it was announced by the passengers on the deck of the Philadelphia boat just arriving, that Pennsylvania had gone for Polk, was believed to have had a decided effect on the election which soon occurred in New York. After having been so terribly wounded, the Whigs, as men usually do after being seriously hurt, acquiesced in the proposition to establish an uniform day for the Presidential election throughout the United States.

SPEECH

ON THE CAUSES OF MR. CLAY'S DEFEAT, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 6, 1845.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I shall leave it to those who desire it to discuss the constitutionality or expediency of the proposed annexation of Texas. It is not expected by anybody that any practical result, in the way of legislation, is to grow out of these proceedings. Doubtless you may be able, as was suggested the other day by the gentleman from South Carolina, to pass an abstract resolution, after the fashion of your Baltimore Convention, declaring that Texas ought to be annexed as soon as practicable. Your agitation of the matter is intended solely to produce capital to operate on our elections at the South during the present year, and I shall, therefore, meet the question on its real and not its ostensible merits. The chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, (Mr. C. J. Ingersoll,) who opened the debate, stated that there had been a very decided manifestation of popular opinion in favor of the annexation, and was pleased to refer to the late Presidential election as furnishing evidence of it. The gentleman from Illinois, (Mr. Douglass,) who immediately preceded me in the debate, declared, with great vehemence, that the popular verdict had been recorded in favor of the measure, and that if those who were now on this floor failed to carry out the wishes of the people, they would be swept away by a torrent of public indignation, and men be sent in their places who were more faithful. If all this were true, sir, it would furnish a strong argument in favor of the measure, because, in a representative Republic, like ours, popular opinion is of the greatest consequence. I shall endeavor to show, however, that these gentlemen are totally mistaken in these views; but to do so will oblige me to examine a good deal in detail the causes which contributed to produce the result exhibited in that election.

I must, in the first place, however, ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, while I advert to a matter not directly connected with this subject.

At the last session, when a proposition to repeal the twenty-fifth rule was under consideration, it will be remembered that the debate was pro

longed for nearly three months, and as each speech was concluded, more than twenty chivalric gentlemen sprang to their feet and struggled for an opportunity to manifest their ardor in behalf of Southern rights. And it was only, sir, by resorting to the previous question that we were able to terminate the debate before the close of the session.

On the first day of the present session, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) gave notice that he would on to-morrow introduce a proposition to abolish the rule. Thereupon the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Dromgoole) likewise gave notice that he would object to the reception of the resolution, because it would be out of order. On the succeeding day, the gentleman from Massachusetts, in accordance with his promise, offered his resolution to rescind the rule, but the gentleman from Virginia, though in his place, greatly to the surprise of everybody, made no objection to its introduction. If that gentleman, or any other member, had objected to its reception, it could only have been gotten in by a suspension of the rules, and it was well known that a vote of twothirds could not have been obtained for that purpose. The proposition came in without a word of objection from any quarter. Thereupon, a gentleman from Mississippi, acting under the old dispensation of Democracy, not having, I presume, from his location in the far Southwest, seen the new revelation of light in the Northeast, moved to lay the resolution on the table. A vote was taken by yeas and nays, and his motion was lost by a decided majority, making it evident that the rule would be repealed. The Speaker stated the question to be on the adoption of the resolution to rescind the rule. The previous question had not been ordered, and the matter was, therefore, open for debate. I looked around to see what bold champion of the South would first sound the tocsin of alarm. There was a full array of the chivalry around. There in his seat on my right was the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Rhett,) who at the last session declared, with so much eloquence and zeal, that a repeal of the rule would be a virtual dissolution of the Union.

There sat my colleague, (Mr. Saunders,) who went off on this matter with a force that sent him during the past summer over the entire State of North Carolina, declaiming against the reception of abolition petitions. There, too, were the gentlemen from Georgia and other States, who vied with each other in their denunciation of all those who did not sustain the rule. There all of these gentlemen sat, quiet and mute, as though nothing unusual was taking place, and saw, with much seeming unconcern, their favorite rule killed off by a large majority. There was no burst of indignation; no exclamation to the South, "Samson, the Philistines be upon thee!" Not even the note of a goose, to give warning of the irruption of the Gauls. Were they asleep, like the Roman sentinels of the olden time? No, no, sir; they were awake, but they were false watchmen of the South-traitor sentinels! I have a right so to call them; for, in denouncing me at the last session, some of them declared that any man who did not sustain the rule by all proper means was a renegade and a traitor to the Southern States. According to the form of the logicians, the proposition would be as follows: any Southern man who does not use his efforts to preserve the rule is a renegade traitor. They were Southern men, and might have preserved the rule by objec