Excerpt

Excerpt from Henry Clay's Remarks in House and Senate, by Henry Clay

Mr. President:

WHAT patriotic purpose is to be accomplished by this Expunging
resolution? What new honor or fresh laurels will it win for our common
country? Is the power of the Senate so vast that it ought to be
circumscribed, and that of the President so restricted that it ought to
be extended? What power has the Senate? None, separately. It can
only act jointly with the other House, or jointly with the Executive.
And although the theory of the Constitution supposes, when consulted by
him, it may freely give an affirmative or negative response, according
to the practice, as it now exists, it has lost the faculty of
pronouncing the negative monosyllable. When the Senate expresses its
deliberate judgment, in the form of resolution, that resolution has no
compulsory force, but appeals only to the dispassionate intelligence,
the calm reason, and the sober judgment, of the community. The Senate
has no army, no navy, no patronage, no lucrative offices, no glittering
honors, to bestow. Around us there is no swarm of greedy expectants,
rendering us homage, anticipating our wishes, and ready to execute our
commands.

How is it with the President? Is he powerless? He is felt from one
extremity to the other of this vast Republic. By means of principles
which he has introduced, and innovations which he has made in our
institutions, alas! but too much countenanced by Congress and a
confiding people, he exercises, uncontrolled, the power of the State.
In one hand he holds the purse, and in the other brandishes the sword
of the country. Myriads of dependants and partisans, scattered over
the land, are ever ready to sing hosannas to him, and to laud to the
skies whatever he does. He has swept over the government, during the
last eight years, like a tropical tornado. Every department exhibits
traces of the ravages of the storm. Take as one example the Bank of
the United States. No institution could have been more popular with
the people, with Congress, and with State Legislatures. None ever
better fulfilled the great purposes of its establishment. But it
unfortunately incurred the displeasure of the President; he spoke, and
the bank lies prostrate. And those who were loudest in its praise are
now loudest in its condemnation. What object of his ambition is
unsatisfied? When disabled from age any longer to hold the sceptre of
power, he designates his successor, and transmits it to his favorite!
What more does he want? Must we blot, deface, and mutilate the records
of the country, to punish the presumptuousness of expressing an opinion
contrary to his own? What patriotic purpose is to be accomplished by
this Expunging resolution? Can you make that not to be which has been?
Can you eradicate from memory and from history the fact that in March,
1834, a majority of the Senate of the United States passed the
resolution which excites your enmity? Is it your vain and wicked
object to arrogate to yourselves that power of annihilating the past
which has been denied to Omnipotence itself? Do you intend to thrust
your hands into our hearts, and to pluck out the deeply rooted
convictions which are there? Or is it your design merely to stigmatize
us? You cannot stigmatize us.

---

Explanation

Detailed Explanation of Henry Clay’s Remarks in House and Senate (Excerpt on the Expunging Resolution)

Context & Background

This excerpt is from a speech delivered by Henry Clay (1777–1852), a prominent American statesman, orator, and five-time presidential candidate. Known as the "Great Compromiser" for his role in brokering key legislative deals (e.g., the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850), Clay was a leading figure in the Whig Party and a fierce opponent of President Andrew Jackson (1829–1837).

The speech critiques Jackson’s push for an "Expunging Resolution"—an attempt to erase a Senate censure against him from the official congressional record. In 1834, the Senate (then controlled by Jackson’s opponents) had passed a Resolution of Censure condemning Jackson for removing federal deposits from the Second Bank of the United States without congressional approval. Jackson, viewing this as an attack on executive authority, later pressured his allies to expunge (delete) the censure from the Senate Journal in 1837. Clay’s speech is a scathing rebuttal of this effort, defending the Senate’s independence and warning against presidential overreach.

---

Themes in the Excerpt

1. Defense of Constitutional Balance & Checks on Executive Power

   • Clay argues that the Senate’s power is limited but essential—it acts as a check on the president, not as an independent tyrant. He contrasts this with Jackson’s expansive executive authority, which he depicts as dangerous and unchecked.
   • The Bank War (1832–1836) is a key example: Jackson unilaterally dismantled the Second Bank of the United States, despite its popularity and congressional support, demonstrating his disregard for institutional constraints.

2. Critique of Presidential Tyranny & Populist Demagoguery

   • Clay portrays Jackson as a dictatorial figure who has "swept over the government like a tropical tornado", leaving destruction in his wake.
   • He accuses Jackson of corrupting democratic institutions by surrounding himself with "myriads of dependants and partisans" who blindly praise him, while silencing dissent.
   • The Expunging Resolution is framed as an Orwellian attempt to rewrite history, erasing legitimate criticism to aggrandize presidential power.

3. The Futility of Erasing History

   • Clay mocks the idea that the Senate can "blot, deface, and mutilate the records" to undo the past. He asks rhetorically:
     • "Can you make that not to be which has been?"
     • "Can you eradicate from memory and from history the fact that in March, 1834, a majority of the Senate... passed the resolution?"
   • His argument is both legal (the Senate’s records are permanent) and moral (attempting to erase history is tyrannical and impossible).

4. Appeal to Patriotism & Institutional Integrity

   • Clay frames the debate as a struggle for the soul of the Republic:
     • "What patriotic purpose is to be accomplished by this Expunging resolution?"
   • He suggests that Jackson’s actions are un-American, undermining the separation of powers and rule of law in favor of personalistic rule.

---

Literary & Rhetorical Devices

1. Rhetorical Questions

   • Clay bombards his audience with questions to expose the absurdity of the Expunging Resolution:
     • "What new honor or fresh laurels will it win for our common country?" (Sarcasm—implying it wins none.)
     • "Do you intend to thrust your hands into our hearts, and to pluck out the deeply rooted convictions which are there?" (Hyperbolic imagery of thought control.)
   • These questions force the listener to confront the illogic of Jackson’s position.

2. Contrast & Parallelism

   • Senate vs. President:
     • The Senate is depicted as weak but principled—it has "no army, no navy, no patronage" but relies on "dispassionate intelligence" and "sober judgment."
     • The President is powerful but dangerous—he holds "the purse" and "the sword," surrounded by "greedy expectants" who obey his whims.
   • This juxtaposition highlights the imbalance of power Jackson has created.

3. Metaphor & Imagery

   • "Tropical tornado": Jackson’s presidency is a destructive force of nature, leaving "traces of the ravages of the storm" in every department.
   • "Sceptre of power": Jackson is compared to a monarch, passing his authority to a "favorite" (his chosen successor, Martin Van Buren).
   • "Pluck out the deeply rooted convictions": The Expunging Resolution is framed as an attack on free thought, akin to Orwellian mind control.

4. Irony & Sarcasm

   • "What more does he want?" (After listing Jackson’s vast powers, Clay implies his ambition is insatiable.)
   • "Is it your vain and wicked object to arrogate to yourselves that power of annihilating the past which has been denied to Omnipotence itself?" (Mocking the idea that mere politicians can erase history—something even God cannot do.)

5. Appeal to Pathos (Emotion)

   • Clay stirs indignation by portraying Jackson as a tyrant and the Senate as a beleaguered defender of liberty.
   • He challenges his opponents’ honor:
     • "You cannot stigmatize us." (Implying their attacks are baseless and cowardly.)

6. Historical & Biblical Allusions

   • "Hosannas": Refers to the biblical praise of Jesus, but here used ironically—Jackson’s followers blindly worship him like a false messiah.
   • "Omnipotence": Invoking God’s power to emphasize the hubris of trying to erase history.

---

Significance of the Speech

1. Defense of Congressional Independence

   • Clay’s speech is a seminal defense of legislative authority against executive overreach. It foreshadows later debates on presidential power (e.g., Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, Nixon’s Watergate abuses).

2. Critique of Jacksonian Democracy

   • Clay, a Whig, opposed Jackson’s populist authoritarianism. His speech reflects the Whig Party’s fear of "King Andrew"—a president who acted like a monarch, ignoring constitutional limits.
   • The Bank War symbolized this conflict: Jackson’s veto of the Bank’s recharter (1832) and his removal of federal deposits (1833) were seen as tyrannical acts by his opponents.

3. Precedent for Historical Memory & Accountability

   • Clay’s argument that "you cannot erase the past" is a timeless principle. It resonates in later debates over:
     • Confederate monument removals (Can we "expunge" history by tearing down statues?)
     • Government censorship (Can records be altered to fit political narratives?)

4. Legacy in American Political Rhetoric

   • Clay’s oratorical style—passionate, logical, and rich in imagery—set a standard for senatorial debate. His rhetorical questions, contrasts, and moral appeals influenced later statesmen like Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln.

---

Conclusion: Why This Speech Matters

Henry Clay’s remarks are not just a partisan attack on Andrew Jackson—they are a fundamental defense of constitutional democracy. By exposing the dangers of unchecked executive power, mocking the futility of historical revisionism, and upholding the Senate’s role as a check on tyranny, Clay’s speech remains relevant in any era where leaders seek to concentrate power or rewrite the past.

His rhetorical brilliance—blending logic, emotion, and vivid imagery—makes the speech a masterclass in political persuasion, while its themes of institutional integrity and resistance to authoritarianism continue to echo in modern debates over executive overreach, censorship, and the preservation of historical truth.