Even at this early stage in his political career, Clay’s rare, exceptional qualities were apparent. He was a supremely gifted public speaker with an agile mind and a keen sense of legislative maneuvering. He seemed to recognize a problem, and possible solutions, quicker than other elected officials did. Everyone who encountered him, friend and foe alike, recognized a young man of superior intellect and ability.
The legislature rewarded Clay by selecting him to serve in a vacant U.S. Senate seat. His appointment was all the more remarkable because he had not reached the constitutionally mandated age of thirty when he was appointed. No matter. He served for slightly more than two months, until the term expired, despite the problem of his age.4
Although his first term in high office was uneventful, Clay nonetheless became nationally famous in those early days. He carried his fame home to Kentucky after his Senate term expired. Practicing law again, he agreed to represent former Vice President Aaron Burr in a case that soon became a cause célèbre. Burr was suspected of engaging in treason for entering into a murky conspiracy to separate western lands of the United States from the government in Washington, DC. Clay believed that Burr was the victim of overzealous Federalist prosecutors. Because the Federalists opposed the Democratic-Republicans, Burr’s prosecution clearly was a political vendetta, or so the defense argued. Clay’s representation paid off handsomely for Burr; a grand jury refused to indict the man for treason. Clay later regretted his support for Burr after President Jefferson pushed for a new prosecution of his former vice president.5
He would occasionally return to his law practice over a lengthy public career, but Clay reserved his passion for politics. Shortly after he returned from his first stint in the U.S. Senate, he reentered the state legislature. Before long, he was elected Speaker, an extraordinary feat for one so young.6
Although he would later become associated with strong national policies, during these years Henry Clay echoed Jefferson’s disdain for a robust national government or an activist foreign policy. The Democratic-Republicans distrusted centralized authority, and they especially resented interference from Great Britain. To their disgust, the Old Empire, engaged in a war with Napoleon Bonaparte’s France, contended that any country daring to trade with France was aiding the enemy. Because the United States attempted to trade with all European powers, even belligerents, English naval vessels sometimes stopped American ships and removed sailors they deemed to be British deserters. In some cases, the offenders were guilty, but on numerous occasions, the alleged transgressors were American citizens forcibly conscripted into the British Navy.
President Jefferson was rightfully incensed at his ancient enemy’s outrageous behavior, but he had few options to forestall such activities. The United States was a fledgling nation with a weak army and an almost nonexistent navy. Retaliation through force was hardly an option. Unfortunately, Jefferson was a victim of his own policies. As part of his commitment to an agrarian lifestyle and a weak central government, he had allowed U.S. armed forces to atrophy during his watch. Now, with his tenure in office nearing an end, he was forced to suffer all manner of indignities. Even after the British fired on an American ship, the USS Chesapeake, in the summer of 1807, arousing intense war fever among the populace, Jefferson knew that he could not risk war. The nation was ill-prepared. Instead, he sponsored legislation to cut off trade with Great Britain and France. By promoting the Embargo Act of 1807, the president was gambling on the possibility that the loss of American exports would hurt the belligerents and force them to cease and desist from harassing American ships on the high seas.7
Seeking to support his president’s new policy, Henry Clay introduced a measure to require Kentucky legislators to wear homespun cloth as opposed to clothing imported from Great Britain. Most members of Congress supported the gesture, but not everyone. During the debate over the resolution, Clay and another member, Humphrey Marshall, faced off against each other. After trading insults, the two men engaged in a duel, still an occasional practice at the time. Slightly injured, the men lived to tell the tale.8
Clay reentered the U.S. Senate in 1810 after the state legislature selected him to fulfill the remaining fourteen months of Buckner Thruston’s term when the senator resigned to become a federal judge. The United States remained at odds with Great Britain, and Clay echoed the anti-British rhetoric of the era. The Embargo Act had proved to be disastrous for the American economy, and it had not deterred the British from harassing American ships. Clay became one of the loudest voices calling for aggressive measures against Great Britain. It was one of several issues that he took up during his short stint. Determined to echo his constituents’ views, the senator also spoke against rechartering the First Bank of the United States, and called for the annexation of West Florida.9
Clay might have won a seat in the Senate in his own right, but he opted to stand for a position in the U.S. House of Representatives instead. He held the distinction of being the only congressman in American history to be elected Speaker of the House on his very first day in the chamber. He was thirty-four years old. Once again demonstrating his masterful understanding of the legislative process, Clay greatly expanded the power of the Speaker. He appointed allies to important committees, and he adroitly maneuvered bills to favorable committees. He also engaged in floor debates, a practice his predecessors refrained from following. Although occasionally denounced as “haughty and imperious,” Clay strove to allow all members an opportunity to participate in debate, and most representatives found him to be evenhanded and fair. He knew that his political opponents would condemn his activism, but Clay shrugged off criticism. He eventually served as Speaker multiple times, serving longer than any other Speaker except Sam Rayburn.10
Clay entered the House as a “war hawk,” one of the new breed of congressional members who pushed for war against England. He led the effort to arm the nation, going so far as to spring from the Speaker’s chair to address the House on one occasion. Using his superior rhetorical skills to full advantage, Clay stood before his colleagues and railed against the British. In his estimation, “we are called upon to submit to debasement, dishonor, and disgrace—to bow the neck to royal insolence.” The continued impressment of American citizens, the refusal to vacate lands ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris, and the British disruption of American commerce were more than the Speaker could bear.11
President James Madison had asked the House to provide for 10,000 troops, but Clay thought the number was far too low. Owing in no small measure to Clay’s power, influence, and eloquence, the House agreed to the Senate version of a bill to equip 25,000 men. Congress eventually approved a measure to raise 100,000 militiamen for a 6-month period. The war hawks forced the war on an initially reluctant president, although Madison subsequently understood the virtues of confronting the British in battle.12
Speaker Clay frequently met with James Monroe, Madison’s secretary of state, to plot strategy. The two men agreed that a new embargo should precede military action, although Monroe opted for a sixty-day embargo instead of Clay’s preference for thirty days. Led by John Randolph of Virginia, traditional Democratic-Republicans objected to Clay’s support for a war. Randolph and his brethren feared that an armed conflict would lead to disaster. Aside from the nation’s lack of resources and war-making capability, military expeditions inevitably strengthened a centralized government. The central tenet of the Democratic-Republican ideology was that government power was to be usually resisted and always distrusted, for all governments, no matter how well-crafted or administered, were inherently oppressive and therefore dangerous to the liberties of the people. Henry Clay’s decision to push for war demonstrated that he had outgrown—or betrayed, in Randolph’s view—his party.13