University of Virginia Library

MR. RANDOLPH'S SPEECH ON THE YAZOO QUESTION.

In order to understand the occasion of Mr. Randolph's speech on the Yazoo
claim, we must enter somewhat into the particulars. As his resolutions go into
a detail comprehending a sufficiency of the history of the transaction to make
us acquainted with the main facts of the case, we will introduce them in the
first place.

"Resolved, That the legislature of Georgia were at no time invested with the
power of alienating the right of sale possessed by the people of that State to
the vacant territory lying within the limits of the same: that when the governors
of any people shall have betrayed the confidence reposed in them and shall
have exercised the authority with which they have been clothed for the general
welfare, to promote their own private ends, with the basest motives and to the
public detriment, it is the undoubted right of the people so deceived, to resume
the rights thus attempted to be bartered, and to abrogate the act thus endeavoring
to betray them. That it is in evidence before this house that the act of the Legislature
of Georgia, passed on the 7th day of January, 1795, entitled an act
appropriating a part of the unlocated territory of the State, for the purpose of
paying the State troops and other purposes, was passed by persons under the
influence of gross and palpable corruption, practised by the grantees of the lands
attempted to be alienated by the aforesaid act, tending to enrich and aggrandize
to a degree almost incalculable, a few individuals, to the public injury. That
by an act passed the 13th of February, 1796, declaring the same null and void
and the grants made under it, the said act should be expunged from the
journals and publicly burned, which was accordingly done, provision being
made for restoring the pretended purchase money to the grantees, the greater
part of which purchase money has been by them withdrawn from the treasury
of Georgia.

"Resolved, That no part of the five millions of acres reserved for satisfying
and quieting claims to lands ceded by Georgia to the United States shall be
appropriated to quiet any claims derived under any act or pretended act passed
by the State of Georgia during the year 1795."

The resolutions were referred to a committee of the whole, to whom was
referred a bill providing for the settlement of sundry claims to lands lying south
of Tennessee, by a vote of 50 to 30.

There was no decision on the resolutions during that session, which terminated
on the 4th of March. It was laid over, with the impeachment of Judge
Chase, till the ensuing session. In the meantime the original grantees had
sold out rights to northern purchasers, who instituted a company called the
New England and Mississippi Land Company. They petitioned Congress to
satisfy their claim by a fair purchase or commutation, and at the session of
1805, the Committee of Claims reported in their favor, through Mr. Dana the
chairman.

On the 25th of January, they introduced the following resolution:—"That
three Commissioners be appointed to receive propositions of compromise and
settlement from the several companies or persons holding claims to lands within
the present limits of the Mississippi Territory, in such manner as, in their opinion,
shall conduce to the interest of the United States, Provided, such settlement
shall not exceed the limit prescribed by the convention with the State of
Georgia."

The resolution of Mr. Dana being introduced with a few remarks, Mr. Randolph
arose:—"Perhaps," said he, "it may be supposed from the course which
this business has taken, that the adversaries of the present measure indulge the
expectation of being able to come forward at a future day—not to this House,
for that hope is desperate, but to the public, with a more matured opposition
than it is in their power now to make. But past experience has shown them
that this is one of those subjects which pollution has sanctified, that the hallowed
mysteries of corruption are not to be profaned by the eye of public curiosity.
No, sir, the orgies of Yazoo speculation are not to be laid open to the vulgar
gaze. None but the initiated are permitted to behold the monstrous sacrifice of
the best interests of the nation on the altar of corruption. When this abomination
is to be practised, we go into conclave. Do we apply to the press, that
potent engine, the dread of tyrants and of villains, but the shield of freedom and
of worth? No, sir, the press is gagged. On this subject we have a virtual sedition
law—not with a specious title, but irresistible in its operation, which goes
directly to its object. This demon of speculation has wrested from the nation
at one sweep, their best, their only defence, and has closed the avenue of information.
But a day of retribution may yet come. If their rights are to be bartered
away and their property squandered, the people must not, they shall not be
kept in ignorance by whom it is done. We have often heard of party spirit, of
caucuses, as they are termed, to settle legislative questions, but never have I
seen that spirit so visible as at present. The out-door intrigue is too palpable
to be disguised. When it was proposed to abolish the judiciary system, reared
in the last moments of an expiring administration, the detested offspring of a
midnight hour; when the question of repeal was before the House, it could not
be taken until midnight, in the third or fourth week of the discussion. When
the great and good man who now fills, and who (whatever may be the wishes

of our opponents) I hope and trust will long fill the Executive chair, not less
to his own honor than to the happiness of his fellow-citizens—when he recommended
the repeal of the internal taxes, delay succeeded delay, till patience itself
was worn thread-bare. But now, when public plunder is the order of the day,
how are we treated? Driven into a committee of the whole, and out again in
a breath by an inflexible majority, exulting in their strength, a decision must be
had immediately. The advocates for the proposed measure feel that it will not
bear scrutiny. Hence this precipitancy. They wince from the touch of examination,
and are willing to hurry through a painful and disgraceful discussion. As
if animated by one spirit, they perform all their evolutions with the most exact
discipline, and march in firm phalanx directly up to their object. Is it that men
combined together to effect some evil purpose, acting on previous pledge to each
other, are ever more in unison than those who, seeking only to discover truth,
obey the impulse of that conscience which God has placed in their bosom?
Such men will not stand compromitted. They will not stifle the suggestions of
their own minds, and sacrifice their private opinions to the attainment of some
nefarious object. The memorialists plead ignorance of that fraud by which the
act from which their present title was derived was passed. As it has been a
pretext for exciting the compassion of the legislature, I wish to examine the
ground upon which this allegation rests. When the act of stupendous villany
was passed in 1795, attempting under the form and semblance of law, to rob
unborn millions of their birthright and inheritance, and to convey to a band of
unprincipled and flagitious men, a territory more extensive, more fertile than
any State in the Union, it caused a sensation scarcely less violent than that
caused by the passage of the Stamp Act, or the shutting up of the port of Boston:
with this difference, that when the port bill of Boston passed, her southern
brethren did not take advantage of the forms of law, by which a corrupt legislature
attempted to defraud her of the bounties of nature; they did not speculate
on the wrongs of their abused and insulted countrymen. * * * * Sanction
this claim, derived from the act of 1795, and what, in effect, do you declare?
You record a solemn acknowledgment that Congress have unfairly and dishonestly
obtained from Georgia a grant of land to which that State had no title, having
previously sold it to others for a valuable consideration, of which transaction
Congress was at the time fully apprised. The agents of this Mississippi Land
Company set out with an attempt to prove that they are entitled to the whole fifty
millions of acres of land, under the act of 1795, and thus they make their plea
to be admitted to a proportional share of five. If they really believed what they
say, would they be willing to commute a good legal or equitable claim for one-tenth
of its value? * * * We are told that we stand pledged, and that an appropriation
for British grants, not regranted by Spain especially, was made for the especial
benefit of a particular class of claimants, branded too by the deepest odium,
who dare talk to us of the public faith, and appeal to the national honor! * * * *
The right of the State of Georgia to sell is denied by your own statute book.
So far from being able to transfer to others, the right to extinguish the Indian
title to land, she has not been able to exercise it for her own benefit. It is only
through the agency of the United States that she can obtain the extinguishment of
the Indian title to the sale of land within her limits, much less could she delegate
it to a few Yazoo men. * * * * The present case presents a monstrous anomaly,
to which the ordinary and narrow maxims of municipal jurisprudence cannot be
applied. It is from great first principles, to which the patriots of Georgia so
gloriously appealed, that we must look for aid in such extremity. Extreme cases
like this call for extreme remedies. They bid defiance to palliatives, and it is only
by the knife, or the actual cautery, that you can expect relief. There is no cure
short of extirpation. Attornies and Judges do not decide the fate of empires.
* * * * The Government of the United States, on a former occasion, did not,
indeed, act in this firm and decided manner. But those were hard, unconstitutional
times, that never ought to be drawn into precedent. The first year I had
the honor of a seat in this House, an act was passed somewhat of a similar nature
to the one now proposed. I allude to the case of the Connecticut Reserve,
by which the nation was swindled out of three or four millions of acres, which,
like other bad titles, had fallen into the hands of innocent purchasers. When I
advert to the applicants by whom we were then beset, I find among them one of
the persons who style themselves the Agents of the New England Mississippi
Land Company, who seems to have an unfortunate knack of buying bad titles.
His gigantic grasp embraces with one hand the shores of Lake Erie, and with
the other stretches to the Bay of Mobile. Millions of acres are easily digested
by such stomachs. Goaded by avarice, they buy only to sell, and sell only to
buy. The retail trade of fraud and imposture yields too small and slow a profit
to gratify their cupidity. They buy and sell corruption in the gross, and a few
millions of acres, more or less, is hardly felt in the account. The deeper the
play, the greater their zest for the game, and the stake which is set upon the
throw is nothing less than the patrimony of the people. Mr. Speaker, when I
see the agency which is employed on this occasion, I must own that it fills me
with apprehension and alarm. The same agent is at the head of an Executive
Department of our Government, and inferior to none in the influence attached to
it. * * * * This officer presents himself at your bar, at once a party and an advocate.
Sir, when I see such a tremendous influence brought to bear upon us, I
do confess it strikes me with consternation and despair. Are the heads of Executive
Departments, with the influence and patronage attached to them, to
extort from us now, what we refused at the last session of Congress? * * * *
I will pin myself upon this text, and preach upon it as long as I have life. If
no other reason could be adduced, but for a regard for our own fame, if it were
only to rescue ourselves from this foul imputation, this weak and dishonorable
compromise ought to receive a prompt and decisive rejection. Is the voice of
patriotism lulled to rest, that we no longer hear the cry against an overbearing majority!
determined to put down the constitution, and deaf to every proposition of
compromise! Such were the dire forebodings to which we have been compelled
heretofore to listen. But if the enmity of such men be formidable, their
friendship is deadly destruction, their touch deadly pollution! What is the spirit
against which we now struggle? which we have vainly endeavored to stiffe?
A monster generated by fraud, nursed in corruption, that in grim silence awaits
its prey. It is the spirit of Federalism." * * * *

The speech maintains the same lofty strain of indignant eloquence, and vehement
invective throughout, and is one of the finest specimens of oratory ever
exhibited on the floor of Congress. It possesses a due proportion of argument,
of close logical reasoning, animated with a glow of honest and patriotic sentiment,
enforced by the powerful energies of his fervid imagination. To the
correspondent of one of the daily papers who attempts to fix on Mr. Randolph
the charge of insanity previous to this period, I would confidently refer to this
speech. If the judges of the Areopagus at Athens acquitted Sophocles of a
charge of madness, merely upon his production of the Ædipus Colonœus, Mr.
Randolph's sanity could not rest on safer grounds than by a reference of his
speech to a similar tribunal. Such a rare piece of excellence ought to find a
place in every schoolboy's monitor that pretends to give a judicious selection
from the stores of American oratory, and the young aspirant to oratorical fame
could not have a better lesson put in his hands.

Mr. Randolph also took a conspicuous part in the debate on the resolution
for requesting the President to present a sword to General Eaton in the
name of Congress, for his services in defeating the Tripolitan army at the
capture of Derne. The select committee to whom the resolution was referred,
recommended a gold medal instead of a sword. Mr. Joseph Clay had spoken,
and gave his reasons for preferring a sword, inasmuch as during the whole
revolutionary war, Congress had conferred only three medals, and he did not
think General Eaton was entitled to more credit for his march through the
desert of Lydia and the capture of Derne, than was Captain Decatur for the
burning of the Philadelphia frigate, and the capture of a junk boat in the harbor
of Tripoli. Mr. Randolph, in his first speech, coincided in opinion with
Mr. Clay, that rewards should be proportioned to the exertions of those claiming
them, as well as to the dignity and importance of the achievement which
drew them forth. He believed that General Eaton would set a greater value
upon any testimony, however small, of the unanimous approbation of Congress,
than on the highest token of applause which a bare majority could give him.
For this reason, he regretted that the mover of the resolution had changed a
course in which all seemed disposed to follow him, for one which many were
likely to disapprove. It has been stated, said he, that but three or four medals
had been struck during the revolutionary war. One, he believed, for Saratoga—
another for the capitulation of Yorktown—a third upon that occasion, yet more
august, when the commander-in-chief of our armies came to resign into the
hands of the civil authorities, that military power with which he had been
entrusted for the salvation of his country. He had always understood that
medals had been struck, not so much in compliment to an individual, as to
commemorate some great national event—of what, sir? a skirmish between some
of our countrymen, with a handful of undisciplined and half-armed barbarians?
As this question is more one of taste and feeling than of argument, he would

not trouble the committee further upon it than to remark, that there is a true and
a false sublime in politics as well as in poetry, and that by attempting to soar
too high, we are in danger of plunging into bathos." In replying in a second
speech to the members who preceded him, Messrs Clay, Jackson, Bidwell, and
Varnum, he said, he offered a few words in explanation, apprehending he had
been misunderstood by the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Varnum. It
was far from his intention to say that rewards should be proportioned according
to rank. With that gentleman, he would be ready to acknowledge merit in a
private sentinel, as in a field marshal. It was to the dignity of the action, its
importance and value to the community, that he should look, not to the commission
of him who performed it. Acts of heroism should never pass unheeded,
but every day did not produce a Cocles or a Mutius. It was to preserve
some proportion between the reward and the action, and value of the
service, that he opposed this resolution in its present shape. He wished the
House to be more frugal of the treasure of public applause; it was more precious
than that which all seemed ready enough to guard. In such cases, it was
always safest to err on the side of economy. Already it seemed that a sword,
presented in the name of the nation, was too cheap a recompense for ordinary
professional service. Where was this to end? The utmost penury of approbation
would not so injure the tone of public sentiment as this lavish prodigality.
By being too niggard of praise, enterprise might be repressed in many
instances, and merit stifled in the germ: but too great a profusion of honors
would almost convert them into a disgrace, and beget an overweening vanity
fatal to real greatness. Every man who obtained a trifling advantage over the
enemy, would conceive himself a Marion or a Nelson. By setting up this
transaction as the NE PLUS ULTRA of military achievements, as the pillars of Hercules,
beyond which none may pretend to pass, we do more to check the spirit of
adventurous enterprise than if we took no notice of it. But say gentlemen,
the person who is the object of this resolution acted in a two-fold capacity,
civil and military, and a sword is exclusively appropriated to reward military
services. But without intending a ludicrous allusion, if the gentleman had acted
in as many capacities as Lady Bountiful's butler, it would not alter his opinion
as to the nature and value of the service. If, indeed, there was such a political
repulsion as the gentleman supposed, between a medal and a sword, like chemical
bodies having no affinity to each other, we should give both on this occasion,
and add a vote of thanks as a basis on which they might unite. * * * The
amendment was agreed to, by 58 votes to 53; by which a gold medal was
awarded to General Eaton.