Cassius M. Clay

Perhaps few men ever came promiïently before the American public with brighter prospects of attaming high and ïonorable distinction as a politica] benefactor of his country than C. M. Clay; and we know of no man who ever more fiectually ued up his advantoges in so hort n time. He is allied to respected nd influential families - heispossessed 0 vealth - he has had the advantages of a ibera] education - he has considerable aleufs as a ready and eloquent writer - e became initiated into political affairs vhile young, and he is now in the prime t life, and extensively known by repuation throughout tho nation. What a avorable opportunity was here to estabísh a sol id and durable character, which might place him among the benefactors of is age and nation, and carry his name to posterity with those of Franklin and Washington! The reason why he has abused this golden opportunity, which vill never return, may be stated in two words - he is a mere politician. Were nothing more severe to be said of him,it would be reason enough why the good and the noble-hearted should rel'use to honor him, either while living or dead. - Their respect and admiration are commanded only by those whose ruling motive is the welfare of their fellow men. ButCassius has forfeitedtheconfidence of the better portion of his countrymen by acts eilher notoriously wicked, or directly inconsistent with his avowed principies. We will mention two or three.1. In 1837, he was electedto the Legislalure of itentucky as an anti-slavery man - so he has often stated, and added that Henry Clay gave a viva voce vote for him, knowing him to be such. During the session, he introduced a series of resolutions in favor of the annexalion of Texas. He was the first man that proposed the project in any State Legislature. Was this consistent ín an antislavery man? 2. He has been concerned in one duel pcrsonally, and was the chosen friend of John Clay in another: and, what is worst of all, he has come out in the public prints in defence of duelling in cerfain cases, as a practice which-"Gocí and nature vindicates" 3. His apologies for Henry Clay's slaveholding dogmas and praclices stand in direct antagonism to his professed antislavery principies. Of this our readers need nospecifications. 4. His continued advocacy of Hènry Clay's elevation after that gentleman had so pointedly rebuked him, demónstrales that antislavery was not his guiding principie. Had it been, he wou ld have come out and said to Liberty men,"I thought Henry Clay was an Aboli tionist: I asked your support for him as such: he says he is nol. I iherefore no longer claim your support for him no shall I give him mine." This would have been manly and no ble. But Cassiusdid not do so! He per severcd in begging the votes of anti-sla very men, and his applications met th fate they dcserved. From these considera! ions weare una ble to place añy confidence in Cassius a an Abolitionist, believing hinrto be desti tute of those principies of stern moral rec titude, which are the foundation of the anti-slavery charucter. We have neve joined in thé extravagant eulogies bestowed up'on him by somé of -our cotemporaries. Weregarded him as an inconsistent, thoügh frank, honest-heartcd philanthropist. We spoke of hirn as such. - Snbsequent events have materially modified our views. We therelbre present hem. Our desire is, not to do Mr. Clay anyinjustice, represent him as he really is.