HBNRYCLAY AT RICHMOND 117

HENRY CLAY AT RICHMOND.

THEABOLITION
PETITION.
[The following articles are the latest, and among the best, discussions
of Clay’s visit to Richmond in 1842, his speech there, and the presentation
of a petition asking him to free his own slaves. A careful reading will
show that they differ very little in matters of fact, though taking opposite
views of the digcity and appropriateness of the conduct of the leading
actors.
The first article was originally printed in the Indianapolis News,
August 24, 1901, and the second was printed a t the instance of Judge
M. L. Bundy in the H e n r y County Tribune, Spiceland and Newcastle,
Ind., January 10, ~~O~.-EDITOR.]

Charles W. Osbovn’s Article.

N the autumn of 1812, Henry Clay, of Kentucky, an aspi-
I rant to the presidency, in the course of an electioneering
tour, came to Richmond, Ind., and on October 1 spoke to a large
concourse of people.
IVhile on the platform and in the presence of the audience,
Hiram Mendenhall presented to Clay a petition asking him to
liberate his slaves. Clay, in his answer, told Mendenhall to go
home and mind his own business. Mendenhall’s action in this
case has been severely censured. H e has been regarded a s a
kind of gadfly, seeking an opportunity to torment the great states-
man in the presence of his political friends. Clay’s speech a t
Richmond has been regarded as a political blunder that cost him
the loss of the presidency in 1844. Most of those who have
written upon the subject seem t o be ignorant of some of the facts
connected with the case.
Judge Bundy, of Keircastle, in a n article in the Indianapolis
Jountal some two years ago, says the speech made the founda-
tion for a third party of political abolitionists, who nominated
James G. Birney, who received votes enough in New York alone
to defeat Clay. T h e Liberty party existed before Clay’s speech
a t Richmond, and Birney received 7,000 votes for President in
1840. T h e party was organized in Indiana in February, 1841,
and delegates appointed to attend the convention that nominated
118 INDIANAMAGAZINE OF HISTORY

Birney in 1844. It would be difficult to determine the cause or

causes that increased the abolition vote from 7,000 in 1840 to
over 62,000 in 1844. This vote was drawn more largely from the
Whigs than from the Democrats, because the former were more
anti-slavery than the latter. Clay was a slave-holder, and in his
“Alabama” letter favored the slave-holding measure of the an-
nexation of Texas under certain conditions. These two things
did more, doubtless, to alienate from him the anti-slavery Whigs
than his speech a t Richmond.
Addison C. Harris, late minister to Austria, in an article pub-
lished in the American Friend, of Xovember 6, 1896, under the
title of “A Quaker Episode,” attributes the petition to a few
so-called anti-slavery Quakers, mostly living a t h’ewport, north
of Richmond, who advocated the doctrine of immediate and un-
conditional emancipation, and who refused t o be switched off of
this main track of abolitionism by the unjust and impracticable
colonization dodge. T h a t these Quakers on learning that Clay
was to speak in Richmond on Saturday before the great Sunday
of the Indiana Yearly Meeting, prepared a petition, got it numer-
ously signed, placed it in the hands of one of their number named
Mendenhall to be presented privately to Clay on Friday evening
previous t o the speaking, but failing to gain his presence, pre-
sented it publicly upon the platform the next day. There is
much error in this account. T h e petition originated in the Indi-
ana State Anti-Slavery Society, an organization wholly unde-
nominational but numbering perhaps more Friends or Quakers
than any other one denomination. An annual meeting of this
society was held a t Newport (now Fountain City), beginning
September 5, 1842, and continuing four days. T h e attendance
was too large for the Friends’ meeting-house, and they adjourned
to a grove fitted up for the occasion. On the first day of the
convention it was “On motion resolved that a committee of three
be appointed to prepare a petition to be presented to Henry
Clay, of Kentucky, when he shall arrive at Richmond, in his
visit to this State as contemplated the present season, calling on
him to liberate his slaves, and that H. H. Way, Daniel Worth,
Peter Crocker and Israel French constitute a committee t o pre-
sent it.
 HENRYCLAY AT RICHMOND 119

“Resolved, T h a t Matthew R . Hull, Benjamin Stanton and

Ziba Casterline constitute a committee t o draft said petition.”
A t the afternoon session I find this record:
“The committee t o prepare a petition to Henry Clay presented
one, which was adopted, and is as follows:
“ ‘To Henry Clay :

‘“We, the undersigned citizens of Indiana, in view of the

declarations of rights contained in the charter of American Inde-
pendence, in view of that justice that is due from man to his
fellow-man; in view of all those noble principles which should
characterize the patriot, the philanthropist and the Christian, ask
you most respectfully to “unloose the heavy burdens,” and that
you let the oppressed under your control who call you master
g o free. By doing so you would give liberty to whom liberty is
due, and do no more than justice to those under your charge,
who h a r e long been deprived by you of the sacred boon of free-
dom; and set a n example that would result in much good to
suffering and debased humanity, and do an act altogether worthy
a great and good man.’”
Immediately follon%qg the petition is this resolution :
“Resolved, That should Henry Clay refuse to emancipate his
slaves, the committee to present the petition be instructed to re-
quest him to give his reasons for so refusing.”
Clay attended a very large W h i g convention a t Dayton, O.,
on September 29, which declared for him for President in 1844,
and came on to Richmond, where he was to speak Saturday,
October 1. T h a t the petition might be presented publicly, and
that violence had been threatened t o the committee of presenta-
tion, is evident from an editorial in the Free Labor Advocate and
Anti-Slavery Chroizicle, of Newport, under date of September 24,
1842, in answer t o the Richmoizd Palladiztm’s statement that it
would be 3%-rongand a n insult to Clay t o present such a petition
on his visit to Indiana. T h e Adzlocate and Chronicle says :
“lTTe hear there are great threats of violence if the committee
should attempt t o present the petition; and the Palladium plainly
intimates an expectation of that kind, but professes to discourage
it, and acknowledge that a violent opposition would be as bad as
the presentation of the petition itself.”
120 INDIANAMAGAZINE
OF HISTORY

T h e committee on presentation, in making its report, says:

“The first object of your committee was to make themselves ac-
quainted with the time that would be most convenient on the
part of Henry Clay for their reception. They accordingly ad-
dressed him the appended note: ‘Richmond, October 1, 1842.
To Henry Clay-We, who are appointed a committee, by a large
convention of people, to present a petition to Henry Clay, signed
by near two thousand citizens of Indiana, respectfully ask him to
communicate the hour that such interview would be most con-
venient. Signed, Daniel Worth, Peter Crocker, Hiram Menden-
hall and Samuel Mitchell.’ T h e last two names were substituted
in the place of H. H. W a y and Israel French, who were absent.
T h e note was presented to Ervin Reed, one of the Clay commit-
tee of arrangements, by Mendenhall and Mitchell.”
Daniel W o r t h had no further hand in the presentation of the
petition, and in explanation of the fact in a letter dated October
13 and published in the Advocate aizd Clzroiiicle of October 29,
says: “It is said to be currently reported in certain quarters
that I had too much prudence to make the presentation myself,
but was willing to shift it off on friend Mendenhall, who was not
known as a member of the committee.” Worth further states,
“that the reception committee informed them that it was Clay’s
wish to receive them a t his hotel on Sunday morning; that he
could not possibly see them sooner, to which they assented and
their committee separated. A few minutes later James Rariden
announced from the stand to the immense multitude that if the
abolitionists had any request to make to Mr. Clay, or paper to
present to him, it was Clay’s wish that it should be done publicly
and on that occasion, that he might give a public answer thereto
and make a public declaration of his sentiments on this delicate
subject.”
Worth says, being separated from the other members of the
committee, with little chance of finding them in the immense
crowd, and being inclined to look upon Rariden’s language as a
boast, he made no attempt to find the rest of the committee; that
in the meantime the other members of the committee (Crocker,
Mendenhall and Mitchell), having obtained proximity to the
stand from which Rariden was speaking, and consulting him
 HENRYCLAY AT RICHMOND 121

further on the subject, went and brought the papers and pre-
sented them. “This is the reason why Mr. Mendenhall pre-
sented the memorial, and I am glad it was in such good hands. I
believe this was an arrangement made to defeat the committee in
presenting the petition and disingenuous on the part of its
authors.” Another version of the sudden change of the time and
manner of presenting the petition is that it was discussed on the
platform by Clay’s personal friends, and that one of them, of the
type known as fire-eaters, said let the abolitionists present their
petition now and publicly and then give them hell ; and that his
counsel prevailed, and the first part a t least of his program car-
ried out. Mendenhall said the reason he carried the petition to
Clay was because neither Crocker nor Mitchell would volunteer
to do it.
Mendenhall was a fit person to work his way through a hoot-
ing, jeering, threatening crowd, for he was a tall, muscular man,
weighing two hundred pounds, then in the prime of manhood,
being forty-one years old. H e arrived a t the speaker’s stand with
his coat badly cut by the mob, and doubtless would have received
personal injury had not Clay stepped to the front of the platform
and begged the crowd for his sake and for God’s sake to not
insult nor do violence to the committee. Mendenhall stepped
upon the platform, handed Clay the petition, and when he saw they
were not going to give him a chair, he sat down on the floor, a
little to one side of the speaker.
Clay read the petition and made it the subject of his discourse.
T h e committee on presentation reported the substance of his
speech, of which the following are the principal points : H e said
the act of presenting the petition was beneath the dignity of an
American citizen. “Petitions,” he said, “are from inferiors to su-
periors, or t o those having absolute power. T h e petition should
have been brought to Ashland. T h e signers were Democrats and
those of a shade darker, and its design was to create influence
against me. Suppose you were traveling through m y country
and I should ask you t o give up your land? But I am aware that
you make a distinction in the different kinds of property. W e
have an idea that whatever the law secures to us a s property is
property. T h e declaration of rights of which you speak was not
122 INDIANAMAGAZINEOF HISTORY

intended by those who formed that document as you interpret it.

All thirteen of the States that framed that declaration held slaves
a t that very time. Yours is a new interpretation.
“Slavery is a great evil; we are in the midst of i t ; fastened
upon us by Great Britain. There is not a man who deplores
slavery more than I do. But the slave must be prepared for free-
dom before he can receive that great boon. H e must have moral
cultivation. T h e Society of Friends takes the right stand in re-
gard to this question. Yours are the revolutionary principles of
Thomas Dorr, of Rhode Island, and should the principles of
your petition be granted, extermination and blood would be the
result. States have rights that you can no more interfere with
than you can with nations. I own fifty slaves, and I treat them
well ; ask my Charles here ; he goes as well clad and, I believe, is
as honest a man as Mr. Mendenhall. My slaves are worth
$15,000, and if the abolitionists will raise and give them the same
amount, I will liberate them. You have put back emancipation
fifty years. Go home, Mr. Mendenhall and mind your own
business.”
Thus it will be seen that Hiram Blendenhall acted only as
the agent of the Indiana State Anti-Slavery Society, of which he
was a member; that he did not thrust himself upon Henry Clay,
but consulted him as t o when the interview should take place
and whether it should be public or private. T h e whole affair
was simply one of those early moral engagements in the irrepres-
sible conflict of freedom with slavery, which terminated with
the close of the \TTar of the Rebellion.
T h e vision of the seer was imperfect when it showed him that
the zeal of the abolitionist had put back the emancipation of the
slave fifty years; for not one-half of that time elapsed until
American slavery was a thing of the past. But slavery, the
cause of the rebellion, was buried a t a fearful cost of blood and
treasure. To-day we look upon the two principal actors on that
Richmond stage in the light of intervening events, through the
vista of fifty-nine years and across seven hundred battle-grounds
of the Civil War, and over the graves of 500.000 soldiers of the blue
and the gray, and the memory of the apologizers for slavery
 HENRYCLAY AT RICHMOND 123

grows dim, while the memory of the advocates of freedom grows

brighter as the years go by.
“Then to side n-ith Truth is noble, when we share her wretched
crust
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ’tis prosperous to be
just.”
Such nobility belonged to Hiram Mendenhall and his abolition
compeers in the early forties, and to-day we regard them as hav-
ing been at home and attending t o the business that belonged t o
them a s American citizens and patriots while advocating the
freedom of the slave. CHARLES W. OSBORN.
Economy, Ind.

Account by Charles and William Coffin.

[Charles F. Coffin,of Chicago, and his brother William, of Pasadena,
Cal., I think, are t h e only persons living who c a n write a correct
history of Clay’s visit to Richmond, and t h e yearly meeting, October, 1842
-sixty-five years ago. Charles drove t h e carriage that conveyed him
t o t h e meeting and listened to his speech. H e wrote a history and sent it
t o me and I advised him to have it published i n your paper a n d h e wrote
m e his consent to my request. ,. BUNDY.]
M. I

I n October, 1842, Henry Clay passed through Richmond, Ind.,

on what was probably a n electioneering tour for the presidency,
though not ostensibly so. H e had been prominent before the
public a s a candidate for President, and had heretofore been un-
successful. The Yearly Meeting of Friends in Indiana was be-
ing held a t this time, and his friends evidently arranged for his
arrival there during the yearly meeting-as in those days the
meetings were very large, and i t was thought he would have a
good opportunity to present himself before them. H e arrived
in Richmond on the 1st of October, 1842, and stopped a t what
was then known as the “Nixon Hotel,” a small, but very neat
hotel, afterward known as the “Huntington.” There were, as
guests, a t the hotel, a number of Friends, amongst others, three
bridal couples-James D. Ladd, Brooks Johnson and Samuel R.
Lippincott. Rhoda M. Johnson, then a n unmarried young lady,
who afterward became the wife of Charles F. Coffin, accompanied
her brother, Brooks Johnson.
124 INDIANAMAGAZINEOF HISTORY

Of course the arrival of so distinguished a man as Henry

Clay attracted the attention of every one. T h e brides were intro-
duced t o him, and he promptly kissed each one of them. Miss
Johnson remarked that she was glad she was not a bride on this
occasion, as she did not fancy the looks of Henry Clay. On
Saturday afternoon he spoke upon a platform which had been
erected on some vacant lots within a block of the hotel. I n addi-
tion to the large number of Friends attending the yearly meet-
ing, the whole country for miles around turned out to hear this
distinguished orator. It was estimated roughly that there were
ten thousand persons in sound of his voice. Of course this num-
ber was guessed at, but there was certainly a very large number.
T h e anti-slavery agitation had become very strong by this
time, and a large body of abolitionists resided at Newport, ten
miles north of Richmond. They met and prepared a n address
t o Henry Clay, asking him to liberate his slaves, and appointed
a deputation to present it to him. This deputation was headed
by Hiram Mendenhall, who became spokesman of the deputation.
T h e y made their way t o the platform, and handed the petition to
James Rariden, the Congressman from that district, and a very
warm friend of Henry Clay’s. A t Henry Clay’s request, he read
the petition t o him. It excited a great commotion in the audi-
ence, who felt it was an uncalled for intrusion a t this time, and
they might have offered violence to the parties presenting it, but
Henry Clay arose and earnestly requested them, on his account,
not to do so, but to allow the parties full liberty. H e then arose
and replied to the address, the committee presenting it being
seated upon the plaform, and told them that he was opposed to
slavery himself; that all the slaves he had, he had inherited from
his father-that he had never bought nor sold one-that many of
them were old and infirm, and would be unable t o provide for
themselves if turned loose.
H e turned to his body servant, whom he called “Charles” (a
colored man), and said to the company: “Here is Charles-he is
in a free State, and entirely a t liberty to leave me if he desires
to do so, and if you who present this petition will prepare a place
for my slaves a t home where they can be provided for, and
enabled t o make their living, I will gladly release them all; but
 HENRYCLAY AT RICHMOND 125

as it is, it would be an act of cruelty which I could not perform ;

and besides, I have grown up amongst them, and have a degree
of attachment to them, which would prevent me from turning
them out without the means of subsistence.” H e then turned to
the deputation and poured out a volley of eloquence rarely heard,
suggesting to them that they were interfering with something
with which they had nothing to do. Standing immediately in
front of Mendenhall, and bending almost over him, he closed with
a peroration like this : “Go home, Mr. Mendenhall, and attend to
your own business, and I will endeavor to see after mine.” This
scathing rebuke of course touched deeply those to whom it was
administered, and they did g o home, and did all they could to
prevent his election for President. Whether they would have
pursued the same course otherwise or not, it is uncertain, but it
is supposed to have had much to do in defeating him for Presi-
dent.
O n the next day, Sabbath morning, the writer’s younger
brother, William H. Coffin, stood very near the platform and
heard 211 that was said, the writer himself being a little farther
off, but yet heard enough to understand most that was said.
H e n r y Clay desired to attend the large meeting for the public
on this Sabbath, and Elijah Coffin, father of the writer, was clerk
of the yearly meeting, and consulted with the few leading
Friends a s to what they should do in the matter. It was con-
cluded to take him to the meeting and place him on one of the
raised seats near where the ministers who were to address the
meeting sat. An immense crowd came to the meeting, and the
writer drove the carriage for his father, who called for Henry
Clay, and took him to the meeting house. It was with great
difficulty that we could get through the crowd, and it was neces-
sary t o drive very slowly, so as to allow people t o open a passage
way and let the carriage through. On arrival a t the meeting
house, a tall Friend, named Pleasant l,Vinston, took hold of one of
Henry Clay’s arms and my father of the other, and then escorted
him t o the place in the meeting house prepared for him.
H e was sufficiently elevated there to be seen by the whole
company, and of course was an object of great attraction. T w o
ministers delivered addresses : one, John Meader, of Providence,
126 INDIANAMAGAZINEOF HISTORY

R. I., and the other, Stephen Grellett, of Burlington, N. J. T h e

latter, a Frenchman of distinguished family, who had left France
on account of revolutionary proceedings, and after he came to
the United States, being thrown with Friends, became a member
of the society and ultimately a preacher of the gospel, who
traveled over the United States and Europe, and having be-
longed t o a prominent family, was well educated and in every re-
spect a most accomplished gentleman. This enabled him to
reach the nobility-in some instances the Kings, and especially
the Czar of Russia. His addresses in English were much broken
and rather difficult t o understand, but were able and eloquent.
Henry Clay listened to these speakers with intense interest, turn-
ing almost around in his seat in order to see them distinctly, a s he
was nearly under them. After the close of the meeting the same
diCficulty occurred in getting him away that had occurred on his
arrival, and I had to drive with very great care, and almost run
against people in order to get them out of the way, as their
curiosity led them t o crowd around the carriage in order t o get
a view of Henry Clay. H e left Richmond the next day, and
proceeded on his journey westward.
This event, unimportant as it may seem, attracted very great
attention throughout the country, and was much commented
upon. Many narratives of it have appeared, scarcely any one of
which was wholly correct, but the position which the writer and
his brother occupied, enable them to give the full facts in re-
gard to the matter, as it occurred a t the time.
November 14, 1907. CHARLES F.COFFIN.

I have carefully read your manuscript, and find it well de-

scriptive of the occasion and subject as I saw it. Henry Clay’s
speech to Mr. Mendenhall and his compeers was not long, but
long enough to well answer the so-called petition, in his lawyer-
like, able and senatorial manner. I could almost reproduce it, not
in exact words, perhaps, but in sense and point and much of
the language used, as I was intensely interested. I was then
a t heart and conviction, anti-slavery to the bottom, and would
have helped in the underground movement, or in any other way
to have done any good, practically, in its overthrow.
 HENRYCLAY AT RICHMOND 127

Henry Clay had made a strong and able speech from a W h i g

standpoint to that great crowd, and this affair was injected t o do
all possible to hurt him because he was a slave-holder. Under
the circumstances the scathing he gave them was merited,
although distorted by them and made to appear in altogether
a different light, a s was also the affair next day of his attend-
ance at the yearly meeting. So, we have so many partly untrue
and distorted accounts of it, yours will be the most truthful,
plain, unvarnished 2nd impartial account of the whole affair I
have ever yet seen written.
Charles Osborn some years ago wrote a statement of it from
his standpoint, which was probably the fairest and most truthful
narrative from that side, but he evidently was not present, and
gained his information from biased sources.
After James Rariden had received and read the petition pub-
licly from the platform t o Henry Clay, he arose and answered
somewhat as follows :-(Condensed) “That this petition to him a t
this time and place was out of order; that petitions were from
inferiors to superiors ; that he was now an American citizen trav-
eling through Indiana to meet and see his friends, and in no wise
a superior, but on an equality with them; that if they had had
a real desire t o see and talk with him about the slaves at his
home, they should have come to Ashland where he would have
guaranteed safety and true hospitality ; and used them like gen-
tlemen; that he was opposed t o slavery, and believed it to be a
great evil, but that it was fastened on the colonies by the
British government a t an early period of our colonial history,
and was now so interwoven into the fabric of our social condi-
tion and life, especially in the Southern States, that it would be
impossible to uproot it a t once without destroying our govern-
ment; that he had never bought or sold a slave, but had about fifty
left him by \\-ill from his father’s estate; that half of them were
along in years, some much older than he was, and the rest mostly
their children, who had grown up on the plantation; that they
had been the companions of his childhood and youth, and he
was much attached t o them, and felt morally bound to support
them in their old age. Now, gentlemen, I will make you an
offer, seeing you have come to me with this affair in this public
128 INDIANAMAGAZINEOF HISTORY

manner; if you will buy a suitable tract of land in northern

Indiana, or Ohio (which could have been purchased very reason-
ably), to settle these old and infirm people on, and where they
can be comfortably cared for, I will agree to turn them over to
you. As to Charles, my body servant, I have brought him into
a free State, and by the law, he is free; and if he wants t o go
with you, he is a t perfect liberty to do so.” (Charles grinned
and showed no disposition to leap into the arms of Mr. Menden-
hall and his compeers.)
Mr. Mendenhall and his company, by this time grown
smaller, some having vanished in the great crowd, showed no
disposition to accept his offer, and then came his eloquent ilnd
scathing peroration over Mr. Mendenhall’s head, ending with
the words, “Go home, Mr. Mendenhall-do good in your own
neighborhood, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, relieve the
necessities of the poor, the sick, the fatherless, and the widow;
attend to these duties, and I will endeavor to attend to mine.”
Then came a mighty and prolonged roar, or cheer, you might
call it, from the excited ten thousand in which I joined, doing my
best, and WIr. Mendenhall went into a hole, and pulled the hole
in, and disappeared. As you well say, they did g o home, and
did attend t o their own duties as exhorted, for they were really
that kind of philanthropic men; and also saw to it that no votes
they could influence in after time were cast for Henry Clay, the
great Slave-Holder, whom Indiana yearly meeting set a t its head,
by the clerk, as they afterward misrepresented and made appear.
It always, in all the statements of this Henry Clay affair I
have seen, made him speak too harshly on the “Go home” part of
it. It did not strike me that way a t the time, as you can guess
by the full text of his speech as I have written in that part of it,
but was scathing enough a s it really was.
I want to say further, your account of the attendance of the
yearly meeting the next day, was true in every respect as I saw
it, and has never before been correctly written.
WILLIASI H. COFFIN.