The New York herald., 1862-08-23

sius NJ Gay was about to be assigned to an i'm
| portant command west of the Mississippi. We
doubt the truth of this intelligence. first. be-
cause Mr.. Clay is untitled for such command;
and, secondly, he has declared his intention
never to draw his sword in a war for the pre-
servation of slavery, which he in common with
Wendell Phillips and other aboltionists, re-
CARDS the present war for the Union. Both
agree that the war never b. successful, aud
that ii is therefore criminal waste of human
life. IL ii were war for emancipation, then
Cassius NJ Clay could "go. I'M" but AS it is not,
he has sworn to have nothing TO do with il.
Suppose we were successful, after "expendng
four thousand millions Of dollars and losing
half million of our noblest men," what them
The South he contends, would hate her con-
nection with the North more than ever "by the
memory of the blood we had shed and the de-
vastation we had caused.'
In his letter, published in the HERALD Of
Monday last, Mr.. Clay complains that he has
been misrepresented. But he does not point
out the passages nor state what he did say.
His letter is substantially the same as his
speech, as reported in the HERALD, and does not
mend the matter. In his letter he defines his
position thus:I am for the constitution as it is
and the Union as it ought to be-not slavery and
Union, but liberty and Union, now and forever"
1t is idle for Mr.. Clay to say he is for the old
constitution, unless he is also for the Union Of
which it is the instrument. He is not for the
Union as it was before the rebellion, but "as it
ought to be-" This is exactly Horace Greeley's
position and the position of Wendell Phillips.
They are for new Union, with slavery cut out
of it, and for new constitution also, the old
being "a covenant with death and an agreement
with hell" They are consistent Mr.. Clay in
consistently says he is for the old constitution,
but not for the old Union. This is coDtradic-
ton in terms. Mr.. Clay; perhaps, interprets the
constitution by a peculiar construction of his
own, and not by the ordinary rules of inter-
probation and the obvious meaning of the
words. Does the constitution any where au-
thorize the overthrow Of the old Union to make
way for new one, unless by amendments to
the constitution itself? Mr.. Clay admits he
differs with the President, who is both practical
and constitutional. But Mr.. Clay is evidently
revolutionary and anti-constitutional. He de-
| MES, however, that "he is or ever was an abo-
| litionist, in the strict sense Of that word"
| Again he is inconsistent, for he says, "There
| is no compromise between liberty and slavery.
| One or the other must die" But the consttu-
| ton expressly provides for the protection Of
| slavery against any authority or power but
that of the people themselves in the States in
| which it exists Yet Cassius NJ. Clay says he is
| in favor Of the constitution as it is. Mr. Cl-y
goes on to say:-"f slavery and the Union as it
| was is the choice then do say, send your en-
bassy to Jefferson Davis and make terms But
if we are to be a homogeneous people, and il
our blood and money are to bear fruit, then
let slavery be abolished in all the rebel States"
| Thus 1t is that Mr.. Clay is q constitution
alist, and by no means an abolitionist or .
revolutionist.
| One thing Is very clear: the ex-Minister to
| Russia is not a statesman. He is an eloquent
stump orator, an agitator, a politician, but no
statesman. He started in 1915 a weekly paper,
called the True American, to effect the abolition
of slavery in Kentucky; and in 1851 he sepa-
rated from the wings, in consequence OF their
| agreeing with the democrats in adopting the
| compromise measures proposed by Henry
| Clay, by which the country was then saved
| from the civil war which has now broken out;
| and in the summer of that year he ran for Co
vernon of Kentucky, against wings and demo-
crats on the anti-slavery basis, and was of
course defeated. lie was then as impracticable
| as he is now.
Mr.. Clay is not a diplolnatist, and could not
| be- His mind is cast in totally different
| mould. When he was sent as Minister to Rus
| 8 q he opened, while on his way, an undignifed
| and imprudent discussion with the London
| papers, which did himself and his country no
| small injury, as We remarked at the time, though
| Mr. Clay says "he has never before been honored
| with his name in our columns" Agitation, not
diplomacy, was his element, and he could not
| resist the temptation offered to his ruling pas
! sion. Had he been diplomatist he would not
have returned SO soon to the United States from
st. Petersburg. lie is polished, educated
and honorable gentleman. but diplomacy is not
| his forte.
| Mr.. Clay is not general He il brave
soldier, brave even to rashness; but he has no
| gift Of generalship, no strategy, no tactics
| Curious enough, though he always opposed
| the annexation of Texas, and was great cham
pion of fMexco--having, as he says in his letter,
"cried out against the raid upon Mexico and the
annexation of Texas"-yet he did not hesitate
to embark in the war with that country arising
out of our annexation Of her former province.
| lie became a captain in the army of General Tay-
lor in 1s46, and by his temerity he was taken
prisoner at Encarnacion in 1s47, and he and
all his fellow prisoners narrowly escaped being
| put to death. lie exhibited no evidences
whatever of military talent. He would, how
ever, make a gallant captain under a prudent
commander, or even good colonel under an
able general He would be the very man to
j a forInrn hnna. nd Il