or manly contest. It was the Hector of Shakspeare, surrounded and impaled by myrmidons, "The earth that bears him dead, bears not alive so stout a gentleman." Many a bright eye and manly heart mourns over him, but he needs it not: Woe! unto us, not him, for he rests well." Instead of the dark cypress, there will wave over him the bright green laurels of glory, and they will become greener and brighter as the centuries roll on. But we shall often want his sagacious head, his eloquent tongue, and heart of fire. Since he came on the stage of action, in every crisis, "One blast upon his bugle horn Sir, it is not talent alone that makes the great statesman. There must be added to high intellect a paramount devotion to ones country, a determination to sacrifice everything of self to promote its advancement. No statesman, no man ever felt this principle in a greater degree than Henry Clay. And, till life shall fade, he will stand erect with a spirit unbroken, in the front rank of those who rally around the Constitution and the Union. If he bears himself well, so does his party. I declare, sir, I have seen nothing, I have heard of nothing, I have read of nothing like it. Whether it be a voice from the mountains of my own district, or from the densely populated cities of the North, it breathes the same spirit. I have seen no one Whig who regretted his course; no one who would not rather be in exile with Brutus than triumphing with Antony; no one who will not go into battle again with more ardor than he went into the former action. Considering its numbers, so help me God, I believe there has existed not upon earth a party so noble. If it cannot preserve this great country, then, sir, you may burn the Constitution, for it is worthless. NOTE. Persons will observe as much difference in the tone of these two speeches as in their substance. The first seems to be the effort of a man hunting for reasons to support a conclusion already arrived at. The second is the result of deep sorrow for what was regarded as a great public calamity, and intense indignation against the authors of the wrong. To those unacquainted with the state of political excitement then prevailing, this speech will seem excessively violent; but in giving expression to my own earnest feelings, I did not exceed the bounds which party friends justified. The Rev. Mr. Hammett, a Democratic Representative from Mississippi, but a personal friend, afterwards told me that I had said the bitterest things ever uttered on the floor of the House. Mr. Mosely, of New York, a political friend, said that the Democrats, while I was speaking reminded him of a flock of geese on hot iron. During the first part of the speech, Dromgoole, of Virginia, who sat just by me, seemed to enjoy quietly 1 my hits at the Calhoun wing of the party, between which and the Van Buren or Hunker Democrats there was much jealousy and ill feeling; but after I directed my attack on the northern wing of his party, his manner changed and his countenance indicated much subdued anger. I was subsequently told that many members of the party insisted that unless Mr. Yancey, who obtained the floor to speak next day, would assail me violently, that he should give way to some other member of the party. Hence his remarks, which led to a personal difficulty, were perhaps influenced to some extent by the wishes of his political friends. In fact, till the end of the session I was in the almost daily receipt of threatening letters, purporting to come from members of the Empire Club and other discontented individuals. Among Whigs the feeling was as strong on the other side. Mr. Mangum, my Senatorial colleague, said that the public mind had been in such a plastic state from its high excitement, that my speech had moulded it into a fixed shape, in accordance with the views presented. Senator Davis, of Massachusetts (honest John) told me one evening at his house, that he had received so many letters asking for the speech that he had sent seven thousand copies in phamphlet form to his constituents. The Whig party was then so indignant, united and resolute that it could have carried the country. Before the next Presidential election, by reason of the issues raised through the acquisition of the territory taken from Mexico, the political condition of the country was so changed that the Whig party had scarcely the form, and little of the substance, of a compact political organization. [It being regarded as certain that the Mexican war would, at its close, bring an acquisition of territory to the United States, an excited controversy had arisen in the country as to whether that territory should become free or slaveholding. The Wilmot proviso, declaring that the territory should forever be free, had been pressed, and all the Whigs from the North, with part of the Democrats, had regularly voted for it. On the other hand, most of the Southern States had taken the position that if slaveholders were by Congress excluded from all the territory, such an action would justify resistance. It was also claimed that as Mexico, in all her territory, had abolished slavery, the institution could not exist there without positive legislation to establish it. Mr. Clay subsequently maintained this view, and insisted on the declaration of his two great principles; first, that slavery could not exist without a positive law to support it; and secondly, that as it had been abolished there, it could not legally exist. General Cass had in his Nicholson letter taken ground for "non-intervention by Congress" on the subject, and Judge McLean, also a Presidential aspirant, in an article published in the Intelligencer occupied similar ground, and even went to the length of denying the right of Congress to legislate on the subject. At the time when Congress assembled, it seemed probable that not only would the Whig party be destroyed as a national organization, but that a separation of the States might be caused, or, at least, war might result. At an early day of the session the following speech was made. Because the principle of division had been adopted in the instance of the Missouri line, and also to meet the allegation that slavery having been excluded could not exist without further legislation, I sought to maintain the right in Congress so to act, as to provide that the territory might be enjoyed by both sections of the Union. Again, in the hope that the Whigs in the North might be induced to meet us on middle ground, and thus save the party from destruction, I, while attacking the abolitionists, also condemned the former action of certain men at the South. Unless some middle ground could be found, I felt confident that not only would the Whig party be destroyed, but that also the union of the States would be endangered.] SPEECH ON THE POLITICAL ASPECT OF THE SLAVE QUESTION, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 22, 1847. The House being in Committee of the Whole, Mr. CLINGMAN obtained the floor, and said: MR. CHAIRMAN: When, the other day, in debate, gentlemen of the other side of the house spoke of a black cloud overhanging the country, and of there being danger from abolitionism to the South, it was impossible to mistake their meaning. As I did not then regard such remarks as in order, I allowed them to pass without reply. We have now, however, the subject fairly before us. The President says in his message now under consideration, that we must have territory from Mexico; and his friends on this floor, from the North, insist that this territory shall be appropriated to the use of the free States exclusively. This presents a great question-a question which has been discussed for twelve months over the whole country, and which must be met by this House. If that question be debated in good temper, no evil can result to the country from the discussion. I, therefore, avail myself of this, the first fair opportunity for the expression of my views in relation to the whole subject. It is known, sir, that on a former occasion I differed with a majority of the Southern members of this House, upon a question indirectly having some relation to the subject of slavery. I voted against the rule excluding abolition petitions, not only because I regarded that rule as an infringement of the right of petition, but because I was well aware that most of the citizens of the Northern States viewed it in that light; and I was not willing to do violence to the feelings of a large portion of the Union, for the mere purpose of preserving a rule that was of no practical advantage in itself. I voted against the rule, because I saw that by its continuance, we obliged the friends of the Constitution and of the South, to fight the Abolitionists at home, upon the weakest of all the issues that could be presented, so that we were losing ground, and the Abolitionists gaining thereby. I saw clearly, that by these means, these disorganizers had acquired a great show of strength, by blending with themselves the friends of the right of petition. They were thus, too, promoting the object they had in view, of getting up excitement, and producing ill-feeling between the North and the South. I saw, too, that our seeking this new defence implied that the Constitution and laws of our forefathers were insufficient barriers for our protection, and that this seeming confession of weakness and fear on our part had encouraged our adversaries, and stimulated them to fresh attacks. For these, and other reasons which have heretofore been stated, I opposed that rule, and I now recur to it merely to say that subsequent experience has given me additional reason to be satisfied with my course. That obstacle has been removed, and we are now thrown back to our old position, the original ground of defence occupied by us in the morning of our Government, when the sun of the Constitution, just risen, shed its freshest and purest light over the Union. Thirteen States, till then independent, sovereign and equal, had united to form a government for their common benefit. It was their avowed purpose to create such a system as would confer equal advantages on each State and its citizens. If, in the formation of that government any inequality was produced, (which is not admitted,) that injustice was not the object of the makers, and not intended by them. It was their plain purpose, not only to give each of the States and its citizens equal advantages throughout the Union and its territories, but, out of abundant caution, they provided that every citizen of the United States should in each State be entitled to all the privileges of a citizen of that State; each State and its citizen might claim a fair share, not only of all that the Government had in possession, but of all it had a prospect of acquiring. Not only was each State entitled to the equal protection of such armies and fleets as the Goverment then had, but should new armies be raised, or other ships be built in aftertimes, they were to stand on the same footing. Whatever the government might acquire, simply because it was the government of the United States, it would hold in trust for the use of all the States. For example, when afterwards the lower Mississippi was acquired from France, all the States were equally entitled to the benefits of its navigation. Had Congress excluded the citizens of any State from its use, and had it said to them: "You have no right to complain of this; all the rivers within the limits of of the United State to which you became a party are still open to you. There are the Hudson, the Potomac, the Ohio, and others; we do not exclude you from them; as to this lower Mississippi, you never had any right to its use, and have no grounds to complain of the exclusion." Such an act and such reasoning would have been at war with the spirit and against the plain intent of the Constitution. This view, that all the States and their citizens were equally entitled to the advantages of the government, both in possession and in prospect, is so obvious, that I need not dwell on it. It has been contended, however, that the Constitution intended to limit slavery to the States where it then existed, and to exclude it from the Territories of the United States. Of the thirteen States which created the Constitution, twelve were then slaveholding: Massachusetts alone having, during the war of the Revolution, abolished slavery. The supposition that the States would exclude from all the Territories of the United States an institution which prevailed so generally among them, seems improbable in itself, and those who maintain it, may well be required to furnish the evidence. There is not, sir, in the whole Constitution any one clause which, either directly or indirectly, favors the idea that slavery was to be limited to the States where it then existed, or to be excluded from any part of the territory of the United States. The idea of identifying slavery with territory, seems never to have entered the minds of the framers of the Constitution. There is, however, Mr. Chairman, another limitation of slavery of a different character, to which I will beg leave to call the attention of the House. The Constitution provides that Congress may, in its discretion, after the year 1808, prohibit the importation of slaves into the United States. The circumstances under which this provision was adopted may properly be brought to mind. It is well known that in the Convention which framed the Constitution there was great difficulty upon the subject of allowing slaves to be represented. After, however, it had been settled, by repeated votes of the Convention, that three-fifths of the slaves should be counted in apportioning representation among the States, Luther Martin, of Maryland, (the subject of the regulation of trade being under consideration,) said that, as three-fifths of the slaves were to be counted in representation, that circumstance might operate as an inducement to the importation of such persons, and he moved to give Congress the power to prohibit or tax the importation of slaves. This motion met strenuous opposition from the members of the Convention from South Carolina and Georgia. They were supported in their opposition by the members from Connecticut and Massachusetts, who insisted that each State should be allowed to import what it pleased; that the morality or wisdom of slavery belonged to the State alone; that it was a political matter, which should be left to it; while, on the other hand, the members from Virginia and Pennsylvania were, with Martin, in favor of giving the power of exclusion. The debate was long and excited. There was also much difficulty on the subject of giving the power to regulate trade by navigation acts. It was contended that the principal inducements which the North had to form the Union, was the benefit which they expected to derive from the exercise of this power; while the Southern members insisted that a vote of two-thirds in Congress should be necessary to give validity to navigation acts; which would, in effect, have rendered the power nugatory. In the midst of these difficulties, which seemed likely to render the attempt to form a common government abortive, Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, suggested that the subject of the importation of slaves, and that of a tax on exports, and navigation acts, should all be committed, so as to form a bargain between the Northern and Southern States. The report from the committee provided that the importation might be prohibited after the year 1800; but, on the motion of General Pinckney, the time was extended till 1808; the members from New England voting with Maryland and the three Southern States; while Virginia, who was said to have then more slaves than she needed, voted against the amendment, with New Jersev, Pennsylvania and Delaware. In this form it was ultimately adopted, as a consideration for the power given the government to pass |