Mr. Jefferson, called the father of the new Democratic Party, wrote Mr. S. T. Mason: “For my part I consider these laws as only an experiment on the American mind, to see how far it will bear an avowed violation of the constitution. If this goes down, we shall immediately see attempted another Act of Congress, declaring that the President shall continue in office during life, reserving to another occasion the transfer of the succession to his heirs, and the establishment of the Senate for life * * *”
[pg 287] Many speeches were made in the summer and fall of 1798 to arouse and organize sentiment against these laws. As Kentucky was in sympathy with France and anti-federalist in politics the sentiment against the laws was almost unanimous.
A great Democratic meeting was held at Lexington and was addressed by George Nicholas. More than a thousand men were assembled around the wagon from which he spoke.
Reverend Calvin Campbell, who at the time was assisting Father Rice in a protracted meeting at the Presbyterian Church, stood on the sidewalk within convenient distance of the speaker and appeared greatly interested in the speech, though he did not agree with what Mr. Nicholas had to say. His experiences with Wilkinson and his dupes and accomplices had made of him an ardent supporter of the Federal Union.
Nicholas, who was instructor in the law department of Transylvania University, was a very able lawyer, a logical debater, a man of good character and fine attainments. His speech impressed all his hearers. He dwelt at length upon the great debt the United States owed to France; assailed the Jay treaty as a most selfish policy and the desertion of the truest ally a country ever had; and finally congress for having usurped power and disregarded the constitution by the enactment of the alien and sedition laws.
Yet Calvin Campbell felt that the speaker knew that it was the duty of every Kentuckian to stand by his government even in her mistakes and as a matter of policy it was all Kentucky could do. He felt sure that such a lawyer as Nicholas knew that if each state reserved to itself power to say what laws of congress it would or would not regard, that the Union must of necessity fail [pg 288] and Kentucky end by surrendering her liberty to decadent Spain for a mess of pottage.
He felt that he could answer every argument made by Nicholas, and in such a way as to gain his hearers from him; and wondered if others were affected as he had been: Though he acknowledged the strength of the speaker’s argument, instead of being persuaded, his sense of opposition had been accentuated.
The crowd was beginning to disperse when several began calling for Henry Clay. In answer to these calls, a tall, slender and delicate looking young man, little more than twenty-one, climbed into the wagon and began to speak.
For several minutes, the majority of the crowd hesitated whether to go or remain. The speaker had an excellent voice, an earnest manner and, they soon found out, something to say and knew how to say it. He spoke upon the sole theme of federal usurpation and his speech was so remarkably good, his manner so earnest and the impression he made so unexpected that his hearers were captivated and convinced. Even Calvin Campbell felt his opposition disintegrating. The arguments his mind had framed against what Nicholas had said seemed losing their potency; not so much by what the speaker said as by the magnetic way in which he said it. He seemed to put into words the thoughts of your own mind. Yet Calvin Campbell after he recovered from the influence, said to himself: “That speech would not read well,” and this impression was confirmed when in later years he read many speeches of the Great Commoner.
When Clay finished there was a moment of absolute silence, then a great burst of applause.