I am a huge fan of Abraham Lincoln. I read everything I can by him, and, when possible, I attend Lincoln-related events. Yesterday, there was an event at Ashland (the home of Henry Clay, here in Lexington, KY) which was well publicized, and which I attended. It is not critical to this diary, but if you want to see something about it, here is a link at the Lexington Herald-Leader.
It featured a speech by Henry Clay in 1847 that may have been heard by Lincoln. The second speech was Lincoln's eulogy of Clay a few years later. I came to hear the eulogy by Lincoln. I was absolutely floored by the speech by Clay. You will be too when you read it. Every single member of congress should read this speech. No, that isn't right. Every member of congress ABSOLUTELY HAS to read this speech. More below the fold (where you may even come to believe that Henry Clay had a time machine and visited 2007)
First, let me say that after I got home, I searched the interned for quite a while, looking for a copy of that speech. It was a difficult search, but I found it. Here it is
1847 saw the United States of America in the midst of a war with Mexico. But, rather than discuss all the whys and wherefores of that war, I'll let Henry Clay speak. Take it away Senator Clay:
The day is dark and gloomy, unsettled and uncertain, like the condition of our country, in regard to the unnatural war with Mexico. The public mind is agitated and anxious, and is filled with serious apprehensions as to its indefinite continuance, and especially as to the consequences which its termination may bring forth, menacing the harmony, if not the existence, of our Union.
Whoa. His introduction sounds pretty serious. Kinda sounds a bit like what is going on TODAY. What else might be in this speech?
Clay discusses the causes of the war with Mexico, and then said:
Thus the war commenced, and the President after having produced it, appealed to Congress. A bill was proposed to raise 50,000 volunteers, and in order to commit all who should vote for it, a preamble was inserted falsely attributing the commencement of the war to the act of Mexico. I have no doubt of the patriotic motives of those who, after struggling to divest the bill of that flagrant error, found themselves constrained to vote for it. But I must say that no earthly consideration would have ever tempted or provoked me to vote for a bill, with a palpable falsehood stamped on its face. Almost idolizing truth, as I do, I never, never, could have voted for that bill.
If only Clay were alive today! Would the current administration have gotten away with all the falsehoods about the start of the war with Iraq?
Was this war with Mexico really any different from the War with Iraq? Clay:
How totally variant is the present war! This is no war of defence, but one unnecessary and of offensive aggression. It is Mexico that is defending her fire-sides, her castles and her altars, not we.
An unnecessary war. The more things change...
Ok, now here is where it is clear that Henry Clay visited the present in a time machine:
But the havoc of war is in progress, and the no less deplorable havoc of an inhospitable and pestilential climate. Without indulging in an unnecessary retrospect and useless reproaches on the past, all hearts and heads should unite in the patriotic endeavor to bring it to a satisfactory close. Is there no way that this can be done? Must we blindly continue the conflict, without any visible object, or any prospect of a definite termination? ... Does the power belong to the nation, to the collective wisdom of the nation in Congress assembled, or is it vested solely in a single functionary of the government?
Ok, now we are starting to get to the heart of the matter. The part of the speech that members of congress HAVE TO READ. This is a long quote, but I've highlighted the more important points:
A declaration of war is the highest and most awful exercise of sovereignty. The Convention, which framed our federal constitution, had learned from the pages of history that it had been often and greatly abused. It had seen that war had often been commenced upon the most trifling pretexts; that it had been frequently waged to establish or exclude a dynasty; to snatch a crown from the head of one potentate and place it upon the head of another; that it had been often prosecuted to promote alien and other interests than those of the nation whose chief had proclaimed it, as in the case of English wars for Hanoverian interest; and, in short, that such a vast and tremendous power ought not to be confided to the perilous exercise of one single man. The Convention, therefore, resolved to guard the war-making power against those great abuses, of which in the hands of a monarch it was so susceptible. And the security, against those abuses which its wisdom devised, was to vest the war-making power in the Congress of the United States, being the immediate representatives of the people and the states. So apprehensive and jealous was the Convention of its abuse in any other hands, that it interdicted the exercise of the power to any state in the Union, without the consent of Congress. Congress, then, in our system of government, is the sole depository of that tremendous power.—The Constitution provides that Congress shall have power to declare war, and grant letters of marque and reprisal, to make rules concerning captures on land and water, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, and to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces. Thus we perceive that the principal power, in regard to war, with all its ancillary attendants, is granted to Congress. Whenever called upon to determine upon the solemn question of peace or war, Congress must consider and deliberate and decide upon the motives, objects and causes of the war. And, if a war be commenced without any previous declaration of its objects, as in the case of the existing war with Mexico, Congress must necessarily possess the authority, at any time, to declare for what purposes it shall be further prosecuted. If we suppose Congress does not possess the controlling authority attributed to it; if it be contended that a war having been once commenced, the President of the United States may direct it to the accomplishment of any objects he pleases, without consulting and without any regard to the will of Congress, the Convention will have utterly failed in guarding the nation against the abuses and ambition of a single individual. Either Congress, or the President, must have the right of determining upon the objects for which a war shall be prosecuted. There is no other alternative. If the President possess it and may prosecute it for objects against the will of Congress, where is the difference between our free government and that of any other nation which may be governed by an absolute Czar, Emperor, or King?
Ok, one more quote about the role of Congress and war:
I conclude, therefore, Mr. President and Fellow-Citizens, with entire confidence, that Congress has the right either at the beginning or during the prosecution of any war, to decide the objects and purposes for which it was proclaimed, or for which it ought to be continued. And, I think, it is the duty of Congress, by some deliberate and authentic act, to declare for what objects the present war shall be longer prosecuted. I suppose that the President would not hesitate to regulate his conduct by the pronounced will of Congress, and to employ the force and the diplomatic power of the nation to execute that will. But, if the President should decline or refuse to do so, and, in contempt of the supreme authority of Congress, should persevere in waging the war, for other objects than those proclaimed by Congress, then it would be the imperative duty of that body to vindicate its authority, by the most stringent, and effectual, and appropriate measures.
One more time-machine quote:
That the power of the United States is competent to the conquest of Mexico, is quite probable. But it could not be achieved without frightful carnage, dreadful sacrifices of human life, and the creation of an onerous national debt; nor could it be completely effected, in all probability, until after the lapse of many years. It would be necessary to occupy all its strongholds, to disarm its inhabitants, and to keep them in constant fear and subjection. To consummate the work, I presume that standing armies, not less than a hundred thousand men, would be necessary, to be kept perhaps always in the bosom of their country. These standing armies, revelling in a foreign land, and accustomed to trample upon the liberties of a foreign people, at some distant day, might be fit and ready instruments, under the lead of some daring and unprincipled chieftain, to return to their country and prostrate the public liberty.
What are the consequences of fighting an unjust war? I'll let Mr. Clay answer:
Of all the possessions which appertain to man, in his collective or individual condition, none should be preserved and cherished, with more sedulous and unremitting care, than that of an unsullied character. It is impossible to estimate it too highly, in society, when attached to an individual, nor can it be exaggerated or too greatly magnified in a nation. Those who lose or are indifferent to it become just objects of scorn and contempt.
I should note that after the Clay speech was read yesterday, it was interesting to see the reaction of the crowd. The vast majority of the audience applauded, some strongly (like me). Interestingly, some just sat there, not applauding at all. You know who they were... 28 percenters.
I believe that Henry Clay would be shocked at what is going on in this country today, and that he would be shocked at how this Congress has rolled over and become Bush's lapdog. Congress need to say that IT controls how this country prosecutes this war, and the will of the people today clearly want to end it. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, HEED THE WORDS OF HENRY CLAY. Follow the will of the people!