Most of the state legislatures signified their approval of the measures adopted by congress in relation to the war by corresponding resolutions. Kentucky early regarded with just indignation the tyrannical treatment of Great Britain, and evinced a disposition to resort immediately to coercive measures for redress, and guarantied her support to the extent of her ability to any course the general government might think proper to pursue. She declared that ‘should we tamely submit, the world ought to despiseus—we should despise ourselves—England herself would despise us.’ In view of the prospect of immediate rupture, she resolved that ‘the state of Kentucky, to the last mite of her strength and resources, will contribute them to maintain the contest and support the right of their country against such lawless violations, and that the citizens of Kentucky are prepared to take the field when called on.’
After the passage of the navy bill, which was on the 29th of January, 1812, congress was employed with matters pertaining to our relations with Great Britain, in all of which Mr. Clay exhibited untiring energy and unflagging zeal. In the language of another, ‘in all of them Mr. Clay was the champion and the guide of the democratic party. No difficulties could weary or withstand his energies. He moved in majesty, for he moved in strength. Like the Carthaginian chief in the passage of the Alps, he kept his place in front of his comrades, putting aside with a giant effort every obstacle that opposed his progress, applauding the foremost of his followers, and rousing those who lingered by words of encouragement or reproach, until he succeeded in posting them upon a moral eminence from which they could look down upon the region where their prowess was to meet its long expected reward.’
On the first day of April ensuing, the following document was transmitted by the president to congress:
‘Considering it as expedient under existing circumstances and prospects, that a general embargo be laid on all vessels now in port, or hereafter arriving, for the period of sixty days, I recommend the immediate passage of a law to that effect.’
Mr. Porter, the chairman of the committee on foreign relations, to whom the message was referred, reported a bill, and the house went into a committee of the whole to consider it. A warm and protracted discussion ensued, and Mr. Clay was among the first to come forward and express his hearty concurrence with the opinion of Mr. Madison relative to the embargo. ‘I approve of it,’ said he, ‘because it is to be viewed as a direct precursor to war. As an American and a member of that house, he felt proud that the executive had recommended the measure.’
As a matter in course, those who opposed war opposed the embargo, which was obviously intended as a step preparatory to it, to give sufficient time to place our commercial interests in a secure condition, so that when hostilities should actually commence, our trading vessels should not be in a situation to become an easy prey to British cruisers. Among the most rabid was Mr. Randolph, who denounced the embargo, and in opposition to Mr. Clay, declared it a subterfuge—a retreat from battle—and not a step preparatory to war. ‘Sir,’ said he, ‘we are now in secret conclave. The eyes of the world are not upon us, but the eyes of God behold our doings. He knows the spirit of our minds. Shall wedeliberate on this subject in the spirit of sobriety and candor, or with that spirit which has too often characterized our discussions like the present? We ought to realize that we are in the presence of that God who knows our thoughts and motives, and to whom we must render an account for the deeds done in the body. What new cause of war or of an embargo has arisen within the last twelve months? The affair of the Chesapeake is settled; no new principles of blockade have been interpolated in the laws of nations. Every man of candor would ask why we did not then go to war twelve months ago.’ He said that the honorable speaker was laboring under a mistake by declaring that the message was for war; that he (Mr. Randolph) had ‘too much reliance on the wisdom and virtue of the president to believe that he would be guilty of such gross and unparalleled treason.’
Mr. Clay replied in a becoming manner, in language that fell upon the house burning with the fire of his patriotic eloquence. ‘The gentleman from Virginia need not have reminded them in the manner he had of that Being who watched over and surrounded them. From this sentiment we should draw very different conclusions from those which occurred to him. It ought to influence them to that patriotism and to a display of those high qualifications, so much more honorable to the human character. The gentleman asks what new cause of war has been avowed? The affair of the Chesapeake is settled, to be sure; but only to paralyse the spirit of the country. Has Great Britain abstained from impressing our seamen—from depredating upon our property? We have complete proof in her capture of our ships, in her exciting our frontier Indians to hostility, and in her sending an emissary to our cities to excite civil war, that she will do every thing to destroy us. Our resolution and spirit are our only dependence. Although I feel warm upon this subject, I pride myself upon those feelings, and should despise myself if I were destitute of them.’
Mr. Randolph still persisted in his intemperate opposition, averring that public sentiment was not in favor of either the embargo or war, and said that he had ‘known gentlemen not inferior in gallantry, in wisdom, in experience, in the talents of a statesman, to any upon the floor, consigned to oblivion for advocating a war upon the public sentiment.’ That the public mind was averse to these measures, Mr. Clay proved to be not true, by citing the great unanimity in the southern and western states, among both federalists and republicans, and the unequivocal resolutions of fourteen state legislatures in favor of both. If possible, Mr. Randolph was exceeded in the fierceness of his opposition by Mr. Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts; at least by the low and scurrilous language in which he expressed it. He condemned the embargo as treasonable to the interests of the nation, as absurd and contrary tocommon sense. He boasted of having sent, in connection with his colleagues, expresses to the eastern cities, in the expectation that an embargo would be laid, that information to that effect might be given to merchants, so that they could obtain clearances for their vessels before it should take effect. Said he, ‘we did it to escape into the jaws of the British lion and of the French tiger, which are places of repose, of joy and delight, when compared with the grasp and fang of this hyena embargo. Look now upon the river below Alexandria, and you will see the sailors towing down their vessels as from a pestilence, against wind and tide, anxious to escape from a country which would destroy instead of preserving them. I object to it because it is no efficient preparation, because it is not a progress towards honorable war, but a subterfuge from the question. If we must perish, let us perish by any hand except our own; any fate is better than self-slaughter.’
In meeting the storm of opposition which raged like a tempest around him, Mr. Clay is represented to have been ‘a flame of fire.’ He had now brought congress to the verge of what he conceived to be a war for liberty and honor, and his voice, inspired by the occasion, ran through the capitol like a trumpet-tone sounding for the onset. On the subject of the policy of the embargo, his eloquence, like a Roman phalanx, bore down all opposition, and he put to shame those of his opponents who flouted the government as being unprepared for war. ‘Why is it,’ he exclaimed, indignantly, ‘that we are no better prepared? Because the gentlemen themselves have thrown every possible obstacle in our way! They have opposed the raising of an army—the fitting out of a naval armament—the fortification of our frontiers—and now talk of the madness of engaging in a war for which we are not prepared! It is asked what new cause of war? In reply I will ask what old cause of war is avenged? Has Great Britain abstained from impressing our seamen? I have no doubt but that the late Indian hostilities on the Wabash were excited by the British. Is not this cause of war?’
There was no withstanding his eloquent and patriotic appeals. They made every heart in the house vibrate and glow with intense desire to arouse and avenge the aggravated abuse heaped upon us by our foreign foe.