[Linda Cantoni ]

American Statesmen

EDITED BY

JOHN T. MORSE, JR. 

American Statesmen

DANIEL WEBSTER

BY

HENRY CABOT LODGE

BOSTON AND NEW YORK

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY

The Riverside Press Cambridge

1883 AND 1911, BY HENRY CABOT LODGE

CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER I. 

CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH

CHAPTER II. 

LAW AND POLITICS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

CHAPTER III. 

THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. --MR. WEBSTER AS A LAWYER

CHAPTER IV. 

THE MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION AND THE PLYMOUTH ORATION

CHAPTER V. 

RETURN TO CONGRESS

CHAPTER VI. 

THE TARIFF OF 1828 AND THE REPLY TO HAYNE

CHAPTER VII. 

THE STRUGGLE WITH JACKSON AND THE RISE OF THE WHIG PARTY

CHAPTER VIII. 

SECRETARY OF STATE. --THE ASHBURTON TREATY

CHAPTER IX. 

RETURN TO THE SENATE. --THE SEVENTH OF MARCH SPEECH

CHAPTER X. 

THE LAST YEARS

DANIEL WEBSTER. 

[NOTE. --In preparing this volume I have carefully examined all theliterature contemporary and posthumous relating to Mr. Webster. I have notgone beyond the printed material, of which there is a vast mass, much of itof no value, but which contains all and more than is needed to obtain acorrect understanding of the man and of his public and private life. No onecan pretend to write a life of Webster without following in large measurethe narrative of events as given in the elaborate, careful, and scholarlybiography which we owe to Mr. George T. Curtis. In many of my conclusions Ihave differed widely from those of Mr. Curtis, but I desire at the outsetto acknowledge fully my obligations to him. I have sought information inall directions, and have obtained some fresh material, and, as I believe, have thrown a new light upon certain points, but this does not in the leastdiminish the debt which I owe to the ample biography of Mr. Curtis inregard to the details as well as the general outline of Mr. Webster'spublic and private life. ]

CHAPTER I. 

CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH. 

No sooner was the stout Puritan Commonwealth of Massachusetts firmlyplanted than it began rapidly to throw out branches in all directions. Withevery succeeding year the long, thin, sinuous line of settlements stretchedfarther and farther away to the northeast, fringing the wild shores of theAtlantic with houses and farms gathered together at the mouths or on thebanks of the rivers, and with the homes of hardy fishermen which clusteredin little groups beneath the shelter of the rocky headlands. The extensionof these plantations was chiefly along the coast, but there was also amovement up the river courses toward the west and into the interior. Theline of northeastern settlements began first to broaden in this way veryslowly but still steadily from the plantations at Portsmouth and Dover, which were nearly coeval with the flourishing towns of the Bay. Thesesettlements beyond the Massachusetts line all had one common and markedcharacteristic. They were all exposed to Indian attack from the earliestdays down to the period of the Revolution. Long after the dangers of Indianraids had become little more than a tradition to the populous andflourishing communities of Massachusetts Bay, the towns and villages ofMaine and New Hampshire continued to be the outposts of a dark and bloodyborder land. French and Indian warfare with all its attendant horrors wasthe normal condition during the latter part of the seventeenth and thefirst quarter of the eighteenth century. Even after the destruction of theJesuit missions, every war in Europe was the signal for the appearance ofFrenchmen and savages in northeastern New England, where their course wasmarked by rapine and slaughter, and lighted by the flames of burningvillages. The people thus assailed were not slow in taking frequent andthorough vengeance, and so the conflict, with rare intermissions, went onuntil the power of France was destroyed, and the awful danger from thenorth, which had hung over the land for nearly a century, was finallyextinguished. 

The people who waged this fierce war and managed to make headway in despiteof it were engaged at the same time in a conflict with nature which washardly less desperate. The soil, even in the most favored places, was noneof the best, and the predominant characteristic of New Hampshire was thegreat rock formation which has given it the name of the Granite State. Slowly and painfully the settlers made their way back into the country, seizing on every fertile spot, and wringing subsistence and even a certainprosperity from a niggardly soil and a harsh climate. Their little hamletscrept onward toward the base of those beautiful hills which have now becomeone of the favorite play-grounds of America, but which then frowned grimlyeven in summer, dark with trackless forests, and for the larger part of theyear were sheeted with the glittering, untrampled snow from which theyderive their name. Stern and strong with the force of an unbrokenwilderness, they formed at all times a forbidding background to the sparsesettlements in the valleys and on the seashore. 

This life of constant battle with nature and with the savages, this work ofwresting a subsistence from the unwilling earth while the hand was alwaysarmed against a subtle and cruel foe, had, of course, a marked effect uponthe people who endured it. That, under such circumstances, men should havesucceeded not only in gaining a livelihood, but should have attained also acertain measure of prosperity, established a free government, foundedschools and churches, and built up a small but vigorous and thrivingcommonwealth, is little short of marvellous. A race which could do this hadan enduring strength of character which was sure to make itself feltthrough many generations, not only on their ancestral soil, but in everyregion where they wandered in search of a fortune denied to them at home. The people of New Hampshire were of the English Puritan stock. They werethe borderers of New England, and were among the hardiest and boldest oftheir race. Their fierce battle for existence during nearly a century and ahalf left a deep impress upon them. Although it did not add new traits totheir character, it strengthened and developed many of the qualities whichchiefly distinguished the Puritan Englishman. These borderers, from lack ofopportunity, were ruder than their more favored brethren to the south, butthey were also more persistent, more tenacious, and more adventurous. TheyWere a vigorous, bold, unforgiving, fighting race, hard and stern evenbeyond the ordinary standard of Puritanism. 

Among the Puritans who settled in New Hampshire about the year 1636, duringthe great emigration which preceded the Long Parliament, was one bearingthe name of Thomas Webster. He was said to be of Scotch extraction, butwas, if this be true, undoubtedly of the Lowland or Saxon Scotch asdistinguished from the Gaels of the Highlands. He was, at all events, aPuritan of English race, and his name indicates that his progenitors weresturdy mechanics or handicraftsmen. This Thomas Webster had numerousdescendants, who scattered through New Hampshire to earn a precariousliving, found settlements, and fight Indians. In Kingston, in the year1739, was born one of this family named Ebenezer Webster. The struggle forexistence was so hard for this particular scion of the Webster stock, thathe was obliged in boyhood to battle for a living and pick up learning as hebest might by the sole aid of a naturally vigorous mind. He came of ageduring the great French war, and about 1760 enlisted in the then famouscorps known as "Rogers's Rangers. " In the dangers and the successes ofdesperate frontier fighting, the "Rangers" had no equal; and of their hardand perilous experience in the wilderness, in conflict with Indians andFrenchmen, Ebenezer Webster, strong in body and daring in temperament, hadhis full share. 

When the war closed, the young soldier and Indian fighter had time to lookabout him for a home. As might have been expected, he clung to the frontierto which he was accustomed, and in the year 1763 settled in thenorthernmost part of the town of Salisbury. Here he built a log-house, towhich, in the following year, he brought his first wife, and here he beganhis career as a farmer. At that time there was nothing civilized betweenhim and the French settlements of Canada. The wilderness stretched awayfrom his door an ocean of forest unbroken by any white man's habitation;and in these primeval woods, although the war was ended and the Frenchpower overthrown, there still lurked roving bands of savages, suggestingthe constant possibilities of a midnight foray or a noonday ambush, withtheir accompaniments of murder and pillage. It was a fit home, however, forsuch a man as Ebenezer Webster. He was a borderer in the fullest sense in acommonwealth of borderers. He was, too, a splendid specimen of the NewEngland race; a true descendant of ancestors who had been for generationsyeomen and pioneers. Tall, large, dark of hair and eyes, in the rough worldin which he found himself he had been thrown at once upon his own resourceswithout a day's schooling, and compelled to depend on his own innate forceof sense and character for success. He had had a full experience ofdesperate fighting with Frenchmen and Indians, and, the war over, he hadreturned to his native town with his hard-won rank of captain. Then he hadmarried, and had established his home upon the frontier, where he remainedbattling against the grim desolation of the wilderness and of the winter, and against all the obstacles of soil and climate, with the same hardybravery with which he had faced the Indians. After ten years of this life, in 1774, his wife died and within a twelvemonth he married again. 

Soon after this second marriage the alarm of war with England sounded, andamong the first to respond was the old ranger and Indian fighter, EbenezerWebster. In the town which had grown up near his once solitary dwelling heraised a company of two hundred men, and marched at their head, a splendidlooking leader, dark, massive, and tall, to join the forces at Boston. Weget occasional glimpses of this vigorous figure during the war. AtDorchester, Washington consulted him about the state of feeling in NewHampshire. At Bennington, we catch sight of him among the first who scaledthe breastworks, and again coming out of the battle, his swarthy skin soblackened with dust and gunpowder that he could scarcely be recognized. Wehear of him once more at West Point, just after Arnold's treason, on guardbefore the general's tent, and Washington says to him, "Captain Webster, Ibelieve I can trust you. " That was what everybody seems to have felt aboutthis strong, silent, uneducated man. His neighbors trusted him. They gavehim every office in their gift, and finally he was made judge of the localcourt. In the intervals of his toilsome and adventurous life he had pickedup a little book-learning, but the lack of more barred the way to thehigher honors which would otherwise have been easily his. There weresplendid sources of strength in this man, the outcome of such a race, fromwhich his children could draw. He was, to begin with, a magnificent animal, and had an imposing bodily presence and appearance. He had courage, energy, and tenacity, all in high degree. He was business-like, a man of few words, determined, and efficient. He had a great capacity for affection andself-sacrifice, noble aspirations, a vigorous mind, and, above all, astrong, pure character which invited trust. Force of will, force of mind, force of character; these were the three predominant qualities in EbenezerWebster. His life forms the necessary introduction to that of hiscelebrated son, and it is well worth study, because we can learn from ithow much that son got from a father so finely endowed, and how far heprofited by such a rich inheritance. 

By his first wife, Ebenezer Webster had five children. By his second wife, Abigail Eastman, a woman of good sturdy New Hampshire stock, he hadlikewise five. Of these, the second son and fourth child was born on theeighteenth of January, 1782, and was christened Daniel. The infant was adelicate and rather sickly little being. Some cheerful neighbors predictedafter inspection that it would not live long, and the poor mother, overhearing them, caught the child to her bosom and wept over it. Shelittle dreamed of the iron constitution hidden somewhere in the small frailbody, and still less of all the glory and sorrow to which her baby wasdestined. 

For many years, although the boy disappointed the village Cassandras byliving, he continued weak and delicate. Manual labor, which began veryearly with the children of New Hampshire farmers, was out of the questionin his case, and so Daniel was allowed to devote much of his time to play, for which he showed a decided aptitude. It was play of the best sort, inthe woods and fields, where he learned to love nature and natural objects, to wonder at floods, to watch the habits of fish and birds, and to acquirea keen taste for field sports. His companion was an old British sailor, whocarried the child on his back, rowed with him on the river, taught him theangler's art, and, best of all, poured into his delighted ear endlessstories of an adventurous life, of Admiral Byng and Lord George Germaine, of Minden and Gibraltar, of Prince Ferdinand and General Gage, of BunkerHill, and finally of the American armies, to which the soldier-sailor haddeserted. The boy repaid this devoted friend by reading the newspapers tohim; and he tells us in his autobiography that he could not remember whenhe did not read, so early was he taught by his mother and sisters, in trueNew England fashion. At a very early age he began to go to school;sometimes in his native town, sometimes in another, as the district schoolmoved from place to place. The masters who taught in these schools knewnothing but the barest rudiments, and even some of those imperfectly. Oneof them who lived to a great age, enlightened perhaps by subsequent events, said that Webster had great rapidity of acquisition and was the quickestboy in school. He certainly proved himself the possessor of a veryretentive memory, for when this pedagogue offered a jack-knife as a rewardto the boy who should be able to recite the greatest number of verses fromthe Bible, Webster, on the following day, when his turn came, arose andreeled off verses until the master cried "enough, " and handed him thecoveted prize. Another of his instructors kept a small store, and from himthe boy bought a handkerchief on which was printed the Constitution justadopted, and, as he read everything and remembered much, he read thatfamous instrument to which he was destined to give so much of his time andthought. When Mr. Webster said that he read better than any of his masters, he was probably right. The power of expression and of speech and readinessin reply were his greatest natural gifts, and, however much improved bycultivation, were born in him. His talents were known in the neighborhood, and the passing teamsters, while they watered their horses, delighted toget "Webster's boy, " with his delicate look and great dark eyes, to comeout beneath the shade of the trees and read the Bible to them with all theforce of his childish eloquence. He describes his own existence at thattime with perfect accuracy. "I read what I could get to read, went toschool when I could, and when not at school, was a farmer's youngest boy, not good for much for want of health and strength, but expected to dosomething. " That something consisted generally in tending the saw-mill, butthe reading went on even there. He would set a log, and while it was goingthrough would devour a book. There was a small circulating library in thevillage, and Webster read everything it contained, committing most of thecontents of the precious volumes to memory, for books were so scarce thathe believed this to be their chief purpose. 

In the year 1791 the brave old soldier, Ebenezer Webster, was made a judgeof the local court, and thus got a salary of three or four hundred dollarsa year. This accession of wealth turned his thoughts at once toward thateducation which he had missed, and he determined that he would give to hischildren what he had irretrievably lost himself. Two years later hedisclosed his purpose to his son, one hot day in the hay-field, with amanly regret for his own deficiencies and a touching pathos which the boynever forgot. The next spring his father took Daniel to Exeter Academy. This was the boy's first contact with the world, and there was the usualsting which invariably accompanies that meeting. His school-mates laughedat his rustic dress and manners, and the poor little farm lad felt itbitterly. The natural and unconscious power by which he had delighted theteamsters was stifled, and the greatest orator of modern times never couldsummon sufficient courage to stand up and recite verses before these Exeterschool-boys. Intelligent masters, however, perceived something of what wasin the lad, and gave him a kindly encouragement. He rose rapidly in theclasses, and at the end of nine months his father took him away in order toplace him as a pupil with a neighboring clergyman. As they drove over, about a month later, to Boscawen, where Dr. Wood, the future preceptor, lived, Ebenezer Webster imparted to his son the full extent of his plan, which was to end in a college education. The joy at the accomplishment ofhis dearest and most fervent wish, mingled with a full sense of themagnitude of the sacrifice and of the generosity of his father, overwhelmedthe boy. Always affectionate and susceptible of strong emotion, thesetidings overcame him. He laid his head upon his father's shoulder and wept. 

With Dr. Wood Webster remained only six months. He went home on oneoccasion, but haying was not to his tastes. He found it "dull andlonesome, " and preferred rambling in the woods with his sister in search ofberries, so that his indulgent father sent him back to his studies. Withthe help of Dr. Wood in Latin, and another tutor in Greek, he contrived toenter Dartmouth College in August, 1797. He was, of course, hastily andpoorly prepared. He knew something of Latin, very little of Greek, and nextto nothing of mathematics, geography, or history. He had devouredeverything in the little libraries of Salisbury and Boscawen, and thus hadacquired a desultory knowledge of a limited amount of English literature, including Addison, Pope, Watts, and "Don Quixote. " But however little heknew, the gates of learning were open, and he had entered the precincts ofher temple, feeling dimly but surely the first pulsations of the mightyintellect with which he was endowed. 

"In those boyish days, " he wrote many years afterwards, "there were twothings which I did dearly love, reading and playing, --passions which didnot cease to struggle when boyhood was over, (have they yet altogether?)and in regard to which neither _cita mors_ nor the _victoria laeta_ couldbe said of either. " In truth they did not cease, these two strong passions. One was of the head, the other of the heart; one typified the intellectual, the other the animal strength of the boy's nature; and the two contendingforces went with him to the end. The childhood of Webster has a deepinterest which is by no means usual. Great men in their earliest years aregenerally much like other boys, despite the efforts of their biographers tothe contrary. If they are not, they are very apt to be little prigs likethe second Pitt, full of "wise saws and modern instances. " Webster wasneither the one nor the other. He was simple, natural, affectionate, andfree from pertness or precocity. At the same time there was an innate powerwhich impressed all those who approached him without their knowing exactlywhy, and there was abundant evidence of uncommon talents. Webster's boyishdays are pleasant to look upon, but they gain a peculiar lustre from thenoble character of his father, the deep solicitude of his mother, and thegenerous devotion and self-sacrifice of both parents. There was in thissomething prophetic. Every one about the boy was laboring and sacrificingfor him from the beginning, and this was not without its effect upon hischaracter. A little anecdote which was current in Boston many years agocondenses the whole situation. The story may be true or false, --it is veryprobably unfounded, --but it contains an essential truth and illustrates thecharacter of the boy and the atmosphere in which he grew up. Ezekiel, theoldest son, and Daniel were allowed on one occasion to go to a fair in aneighboring town, and each was furnished with a little money from theslender store at home. When they returned in the evening, Daniel wasradiant with enjoyment; Ezekiel rather silent. Their mother inquired as totheir adventures, and finally asked Daniel what he did with his money. "Spent it, " was the reply. "And what did you do with yours, Ezekiel?" "Lentit to Daniel. " That answer well sums up the story of Webster's home life inchildhood. All were giving or lending to Daniel of their money, their time, their activity, their love and affection. This petting was partly due toWebster's delicate health, but it was also in great measure owing to hisnature. He was one of those rare and fortunate beings who without exertiondraw to themselves the devotion of other people, and are always surroundedby men and women eager to do and to suffer for them. The boy accepted allthat was showered upon him, not without an obvious sense that it was hisdue. He took it in the royal spirit which is characteristic of suchnatures; but in those childish days when laughter and tears came readily, he repaid the generous and sacrificing love with the warm and affectionategratitude of an earnest nature and a naturally loving heart. He was nevercold, or selfish, or designing. Others loved him, and sacrificed to him, but he loved them in return and appreciated their sacrifices. Theseconditions of his early days must, however, have had an effect upon hisdisposition and increased his belief in the fitness of having the devotionof other people as one of his regal rights and privileges, while, at thesame time, it must have helped to expand his affections and give warmth toevery generous feeling. 

The passions for reading and play went with him to Dartmouth, the littleNew Hampshire college of which he was always so proud and so fond. Theinstruction there was of good quality enough, but it was meagre in quantityand of limited range, compared to what is offered by most good high schoolsof the present day. In the reminiscences of his fellow-students there isabundant material for a picture of Webster at that time. He was recognizedby all as the foremost man in the college, as easily first, with no second. Yet at the same time Mr. Webster was neither a student nor a scholar in thetruest sense of the words. He read voraciously all the English literaturehe could lay his hands on, and remembered everything he read. He achievedfamiliarity with Latin and with Latin authors, and absorbed a great deal ofhistory. He was the best general scholar in the college. He was not onlynot deficient but he showed excellence at recitation in every branch ofstudy. He could learn anything if he tried. But with all this he nevergained more than a smattering of Greek and still less of mathematics, because those studies require, for anything more than a fair proficiency, alove of knowledge for its own sake, a zeal for learning incompatible withindolence, and a close, steady, and disinterested attention. These were notthe characteristics of Mr. Webster's mind. He had a marvellous power ofrapid acquisition, but he learned nothing unless he liked the subject andtook pleasure in it or else was compelled to the task. This is not thestuff from which the real student, with an original or inquiring mind, ismade. It is only fair to say that this estimate, drawn from the opinions ofhis fellow-students, coincided with his own, for he was too large-mindedand too clear-headed to have any small vanity or conceit in judginghimself. He said soon after he left college, and with perfect truth, thathis scholarship was not remarkable, nor equal to what he was credited with. He explained his reputation after making this confession by saying that heread carefully, meditated on what he had read, and retained it so that onany subject he was able to tell all he knew to the best advantage, and wascareful never to go beyond his depth. There is no better analysis of Mr. Webster's strongest qualities of mind than this made by himself inreference to his college standing. Rapid acquisition, quick assimilation ofideas, an iron memory, and a wonderful power of stating and displaying allhe knew characterized him then as in later life. The extent of hisknowledge and the range of his mind, not the depth or soundness of hisscholarship, were the traits which his companions remembered. One of themsays that they often felt that he had a more extended understanding thanthe tutors to whom he recited, and this was probably true. The Faculty ofthe college recognized in Webster the most remarkable man who had ever comeamong them, but they could not find good grounds to award him the prizes, which, by his standing among his fellows, ought by every rule to have beenat his feet. He had all the promise of a great man, but he was not a finescholar. 

He was studious, punctual, and regular in all his habits. He was sodignified that his friends would as soon have thought of seeing PresidentWheelock indulge in boyish disorders as of seeing him. But with all hisdignity and seriousness of talk and manner, he was a thoroughly genialcompanion, full of humor and fun and agreeable conversation. He had fewintimates, but many friends. He was generally liked as well as universallyadmired, was a leader in the college societies, active and successful insports, simple, hearty, unaffected, without a touch of priggishness andwith a wealth of wholesome animal spirits. 

But in these college days, besides the vague feeling of students andprofessors that they had among them a very remarkable man, there is a clearindication that the qualities which afterwards raised him to fame and powerwere already apparent, and affected the little world about him. All hiscontemporaries of that time speak of his eloquence. The gift of speech, theunequalled power of statement, which were born in him, just like themusical tones of his voice, could not be repressed. There was no recurrenceof the diffidence of Exeter. His native genius led him irresistibly alongthe inevitable path. He loved to speak, to hold the attention of alistening audience. He practised off-hand speaking, but he more commonlyprepared himself by meditating on his subject and making notes, which, however, he never used. He would enter the class-room or debating societyand begin in a low voice and almost sleepy manner, and would then graduallyrouse himself like a lion, and pour forth his words until he had hishearers completely under his control, and glowing with enthusiasm. 

We see too, at this time, the first evidence of that other great gift ofbountiful nature in his commanding presence. He was then tall and thin, with high cheek bones and dark skin, but he was still impressive. The boysabout him never forgot the look of his deep-set eyes, or the sound of thesolemn tones of his voice, his dignity of mien, and his absorption in hissubject. Above all they were conscious of something indefinable whichconveyed a sense of greatness. It is not usual to dwell so much upon merephysical attributes and appearance, but we must recur to them again andagain, for Mr. Webster's personal presence was one of the great elements ofhis success; it was the fit companion and even a part of his genius, andwas the cause of his influence, and of the wonder and admiration whichfollowed him, as much almost as anything he ever said or did. 

To Mr. Webster's college career belong the first fruits of his intellect. He edited, during one year, a small weekly journal, and thus eked out hisslender means. Besides his strictly editorial labors, he printed some shortpieces of his own, which have vanished, and he also indulged in poeticaleffusions, which he was fond of sending to absent friends. His rhymes arewithout any especial character, neither much better nor much worse thanmost college verses, and they have no intrinsic value beyond showing thattheir author, whatever else he might be, was no poet. But in his own fieldsomething of this time, having a real importance, has come down to us. Thefame of his youthful eloquence, so far beyond anything ever known in thecollege, was noised abroad, and in the year 1800 the citizens of Hanover, the college town, asked him to deliver the Fourth of July oration. In thisproduction, which was thought of sufficient merit to deserve printing, Mr. Webster sketched rapidly and exultingly the course of the Revolution, threwin a little Federal politics, and eulogized the happy system of the newConstitution. Of this and his other early orations he always spoke with agood deal of contempt, as examples of bad taste, which he wished to haveburied and forgotten. Accordingly his wholesale admirers and supporters whohave done most of the writing about him, and who always sneezed when Mr. Webster took snuff, have echoed his opinions about these youthfulproductions, and beyond allowing to them the value which everythingWebsterian has for the ardent worshipper, have been disposed to hurry themover as of no moment. Compared to the reply to Hayne or the Plymouthoration, the Hanover speech is, of course, a poor and trivial thing. Considered, as it ought to be, by itself and in itself, it is not only ofgreat interest as Mr. Webster's first utterance on public questions, but itis something of which he had no cause to feel ashamed. The sentiments arehonest, elevated, and manly, and the political doctrine is sound. Mr. Webster was then a boy of eighteen, and he therefore took his politics fromhis father and his father's friends. For the same reason he was imitativein style and mode of thought. All boys of that age, whether geniuses ornot, are imitative, and Mr. Webster, who was never profoundly original inthought, was no exception to the rule. He used the style of the eighteenthcentury, then in its decadence, and very florid, inflated, and heavy itwas. Yet his work was far better and his style simpler and more direct thanthat which was in fashion. He indulged in a good deal of patrioticglorification. We smile at his boyish Federalism describing Napoleon as"the gasconading pilgrim of Egypt, " and Columbia as "seated in the forum ofnations, and the empires of the world amazed at the bright effulgence ofher glory. " These sentences are the acme of fine writing, very boyish andvery poor; but they are not fair examples of the whole, which is muchsimpler and more direct than might have been expected. Moreover, thethought is the really important thing. We see plainly that the speakerbelongs to the new era and the new generation of national measures andnationally-minded men. There is no colonialism about him. He is in fullsympathy with the Washingtonian policy of independence in our foreignrelations and of complete separation from the affairs of Europe. But themain theme and the moving spirit of this oration are most important of all. The boy Webster preached love of country, the grandeur of Americannationality, fidelity to the Constitution as the bulwark of nationality, and the necessity and the nobility of the union of the States; and that wasthe message which the man Webster delivered to his fellow-men. The enduringwork which Mr. Webster did in the world, and his meaning and influence inAmerican history, are all summed up in the principles enunciated in thatboyish speech at Hanover. The statement of the great principles wasimproved and developed until it towered above this first expression as MontBlanc does above the village nestled at its foot, but the essentialsubstance never altered in the least. 

Two other college orations have been preserved. One is a eulogy on aclassmate who died before finishing his course, the other is a discourse on"Opinion, " delivered before the society of the "United Fraternity. " Thereis nothing of especial moment in the thought of either, and the improvementin style over the Hanover speech, though noticeable, is not very marked. Inthe letters of that period, however, amid the jokes and fun, we see thatMr. Webster was already following his natural bent, and turning hisattention to politics. He manifests the same spirit as in his oration, andshows occasionally an unusual maturity of judgment. His criticism ofHamilton's famous letter to Adams, to take the most striking instance, isboth keen and sound. 

After taking his degree in due course in 1801, Mr. Webster returned to hisnative village, and entered the office of a lawyer next door to hisfather's house, where he began the study of the law in compliance with hisfather's wish, but without any very strong inclination of his own. Here heread some law and more English literature, and passed a good deal of timein fishing and shooting. Before the year was out, however, he was obligedto drop his legal studies and accept the post of schoolmaster in the littletown of Fryeburg, Maine. 

This change was due to an important event in the Webster family which hadoccurred some time before. The affection existing between Daniel and hiselder brother Ezekiel was peculiarly strong and deep. The younger and morefortunate son, once started in his education, and knowing the desire of hiselder brother for the same advantages, longed to obtain them for him. Onenight in vacation, after Daniel had been two years at Dartmouth, the twobrothers discussed at length the all-important question. The next day, Daniel broached the matter to his father. The judge was taken by surprise. He was laboring already under heavy pecuniary burdens caused by theexpenses of Daniel's education. The farm was heavily mortgaged, andEbenezer Webster knew that he was old before his time and not destined tomany more years of life. With the perfect and self-sacrificing couragewhich he always showed, he did not shrink from this new demand, althoughEzekiel was the prop and mainstay of the house. He did not think for amoment of himself, yet, while he gave his consent, he made it conditionalon that of the mother and daughters whom he felt he was soon to leave. ButMrs. Webster had the same spirit as her husband. She was ready to sell thefarm, to give up everything for the boys, provided they would promise tocare in the future for her and their sisters. More utter self-abnegationand more cheerful and devoted self-sacrifice have rarely been exhibited, and it was all done with a simplicity which commands our reverence. It wasmore than should have been asked, and a boy less accustomed than DanielWebster to the devotion of others, even with the incentive of brotherlylove, might have shrunk from making the request. The promise of futuresupport was easily made, but the hard pinch of immediate sacrifice had tobe borne at once. The devoted family gave themselves up to the struggle tosecure an education for the two boys, and for years they did battle withdebt and the pressure of poverty. Ezekiel began his studies and enteredcollege the year Daniel graduated; but the resources were running low, solow that the law had to be abandoned and money earned without delay; andhence the schoolmastership. 

At no time in his life does Mr. Webster's character appear in a fairer ormore lovable light than during this winter at Fryeburg. He took his ownshare in the sacrifices he had done so much to entail, and he carried itcheerfully. Out of school hours he copied endless deeds, an occupationwhich he loathed above all others, in order that he might give all hissalary to his brother. The burden and heat of the day in this struggle foreducation fell chiefly on the elder brother in the years which followed;but here Daniel did his full part, and deserves the credit for it. 

He was a successful teacher. His perfect dignity, his even temper, andimperturbable equanimity made his pupils like and respect him. Thesurvivors, in their old age, recalled the impression he made upon them, andespecially remembered the solemn tones of his voice at morning and eveningprayer, extemporaneous exercises which he scrupulously maintained. Hisletters at this time are like those of his college days, full of fun andgood humor and kind feeling. He had his early love affairs, but was savedfrom matrimony by the liberality of his affections, which were not confinedto a single object. He laughs pleasantly and good-naturedly over hisfortunes with the fair sex, and talks a good deal about them, but his firstloves do not seem to have been very deep or lasting. Wherever he went, heproduced an impression on all who saw him. In Fryeburg it was his eyeswhich people seem to have remembered best. He was still very thin in faceand figure, and he tells us himself that he was known in the village as"All-eyes;" and one of the boys, a friend of later years, refers to Mr. Webster's "full, steady, large, and searching eyes. " There never was a timein his life when those who saw him did not afterwards speak of his looks, generally either of the wonderful eyes or the imposing presence. 

There was a circulating library in Fryeburg, and this he read through inhis usual rapacious and retentive fashion. Here, too, he was called on fora Fourth of July oration. This speech, which has been recently printed, dwells much on the Constitution and the need of adhering to it in itsentirety. There is a distinct improvement in his style in the direction ofsimplicity, but there is no marked advance in thought or power ofexpression over the Hanover oration. Two months after delivering thisaddress he returned to Salisbury and resumed the study of the law in Mr. Thompson's office. He now plunged more deeply into law books, and began towork at the law with zeal, while at the same time he read much andthoroughly in the best Latin authors. In the months which ensued his mindexpanded, and ambition began to rise within him. His horizon was a limitedone; the practice of his profession, as he saw it carried on about him, wassmall and petty; but his mind could not be shackled. He saw the lions inthe path plainly, but he also perceived the great opportunities which thelaw was to offer in the United States, and he prophesied that we, too, should soon have our Mansfields and Kenyons. The hand of poverty was heavyupon him, and he was chafing and beating his wings against the iron barswith which circumstances had imprisoned him. He longed for a wider field, and eagerly desired to finish his studies in Boston, but saw no way to getthere, except by a "miracle. "

This miracle came through Ezekiel, who had been doing more for himself andhis family than any one else, but who, after three years in college, was atthe end of his resources, and had taken, in his turn, to keeping school. Daniel went to Boston, and there obtained a good private school for hisbrother. The salary thus earned by Ezekiel was not only sufficient forhimself, but enabled Daniel to gratify the cherished wish of his heart, andcome to the New England capital to conclude his professional studies. 

The first thing to be done was to gain admittance to some good office. Mr. Webster was lucky enough to obtain an introduction to Mr. Gore, with whom, as with the rest of the world, that wonderful look and manner, apparenteven then, through boyishness and rusticity, stood him in good stead. Mr. Gore questioned him, trusted him, and told him to hang up his hat, beginwork as clerk at once, and write to New Hampshire for his credentials. Theposition thus obtained was one of fortune's best gifts to Mr. Webster. Itnot only gave him an opportunity for a wide study of the law under wisesupervision, but it brought him into daily contact with a trained barristerand an experienced public man. Christopher Gore, one of the most eminentmembers of the Boston bar and a distinguished statesman, had just returnedfrom England, whither he had been sent as one of the commissionersappointed under the Jay treaty. He was a fine type of the aristocraticFederalist leader, one of the most prominent of that little group whichfrom the "headquarters of good principles" in Boston so long controlled thepolitics of Massachusetts. He was a scholar, gentleman, and man of theworld, and his portrait shows us a refined, high-bred face, suggesting aFrench marquis of the eighteenth century rather than the son of a NewEngland sea-captain. A few years later, Mr. Gore was chosen governor ofMassachusetts, and defeated when a candidate for reëlection, largely, it issupposed, because he rode in a coach and four (to which rumor addedoutriders) whenever he went to his estate at Waltham. This mode of traveloffended the sensibilities of his democratic constituents, but did notprevent his being subsequently chosen to the Senate of the United States, where he served a term with much distinction. The society of such a man wasinvaluable to Mr. Webster at this time. It taught him many things which hecould have learned in no other way, and appealed to that strong taste foreverything dignified and refined which was so marked a trait of hisdisposition and habits. He saw now the real possibilities which he haddreamed of in his native village; and while he studied law deeply andhelped his brother with his school, he also studied men still morethoroughly and curiously. The professional associates and friends of Mr. Gore were the leaders of the Boston bar when it had many distinguished menwhose names hold high places in the history of American law. Among themwere Theophilus Parsons, Chief Justice of Massachusetts; Samuel Dexter, theablest of them all, fresh from service in Congress and the Senate and asSecretary of the Treasury; Harrison Gray Otis, fluent and graceful as anorator; James Sullivan, and Daniel Davis, the Solicitor-General. All theseand many more Mr. Webster saw and watched, and he has left in his diarydiscriminating sketches of Parsons and Dexter, whom he greatly admired, andof Sullivan, of whom he had a poor opinion professionally. 

Towards the end of the year 1804, while Mr. Webster was thus pleasantlyengaged in studying his profession, getting a glimpse of the world, and nowand then earning a little money, an opening came to him which seemed topromise immediate and assured prosperity. The judges of his father's courtof common pleas offered him the vacant clerkship, worth about fifteenhundred dollars annually. This was wealth to Mr. Webster. With this incomehe could relieve the family from debt, make his father's last yearscomfortable, and smooth Ezekiel's path to the bar. When, however, heannounced his good luck to Mr. Gore, and his intention of immediately goinghome to accept the position, that gentleman, to Mr. Webster's greatsurprise, strongly urged a contrary course. He pointed out the possiblereduction of the salary, the fact that the office depended on the favor ofthe judges, and, above all, that it led to nothing, and destroyed thechances of any really great career. This wise mentor said: "Go on andfinish your studies. You are poor enough, but there are greater evils thanpoverty; live on no man's favor; what bread you do eat, let it be the breadof independence; pursue your profession, make yourself useful to yourfriends and a little formidable to your enemies, and you have nothing tofear. " Mr. Webster, always susceptible to outside influences, saw thewisdom of this advice, and accepted it. It would have been well if he hadnever swerved even by a hair's breadth from the high and sound principleswhich it inculcated. He acted then without delay. Going at once toSalisbury, he broke the news of his unlooked-for determination to hisfather, who was utterly amazed. Pride in his son's high spirit mingledsomewhat with disappointment at the prospect of continued hardships; butthe brave old man accepted the decision with the Puritan stoicism which wasso marked a trait in his character, and the matter ended there. 

Returning to Boston, Mr. Webster was admitted to the bar in March, 1805. Mr. Gore moved his admission, and, in the customary speech, prophesied hisstudent's future eminence with a sure knowledge of the latent powers whichhad dictated his own advice in the matter of the clerkship. Soon afterthis, Mr. Webster returned to New Hampshire and opened his office in thelittle town of Boscawen, in order that he might be near his father. Here hedevoted himself assiduously to business and study for more than two years, working at his profession, and occasionally writing articles for the"Boston Anthology. " During this time he made his first appearance in court, his father being on the bench. He gathered together a practice worth fiveor six hundred a year, a very creditable sum for a young countrypractitioner, and won a reputation which made him known in the State. 

In April, 1806, after a noble, toiling, unselfish life of sixty-sevenyears, Ebenezer Webster died. Daniel assumed his father's debts, waiteduntil Ezekiel was admitted to the bar, and then, transferring his businessto his brother, moved, in the autumn of 1807, to Portsmouth. This was theprincipal town of the State, and offered, therefore, the larger field whichhe felt he needed to give his talents sufficient scope. Thus the firstperiod in his life closed, and he started out on the extended anddistinguished career which lay before him. These early years had been yearsof hardship, but they were among the best of his life. Through greatdifficulties and by the self-sacrifice of his family, he had made his wayto the threshold of the career for which he was so richly endowed. He hadpassed an unblemished youth; he had led a clean, honest, hard-working life;he was simple, manly, affectionate. Poverty had been a misfortune, notbecause it had warped or soured him, for he smiled at it with cheerfulphilosophy, nor because it had made him avaricious, for he never eitherthen or at any time cared for money for its own sake, and nothing couldchill the natural lavishness of his disposition. But poverty accustomed himto borrowing and to debt, and this was a misfortune to a man of Mr. Webster's temperament. In those early days he was anxious to pay his debts;but they did not lie heavy upon him or carry a proper sense ofresponsibility, as they did to Ezekiel and to his father. He was deeply indebt; his books, even, were bought with borrowed money, all which wasnatural and inevitable; but the trouble was that it never seems to haveweighed upon him or been felt by him as of much importance. He was thusearly brought into the habit of debt, and was led unconsciously to regarddebts and borrowing as he did the sacrifices of others, as the normal modesof existence. Such a condition was to be deplored, because it fostered anunfortunate tendency in his moral nature. With this exception, Mr. Webster's early years present a bright picture, and one which any man had aright to regard with pride and affection. 

CHAPTER II. 

LAW AND POLITICS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

The occasion of Mr. Webster's first appearance in court has been thesubject of varying tradition. It is certain, however, that in the countieswhere he practised during his residence at Boscawen, he made an unusual andvery profound impression. The effect then produced is described in homelyphrase by one who knew him well. The reference is to a murder trial, inwhich Mr. Webster gained his first celebrity. 

 "There was a man tried for his life, and the judges chose Webster to plead for him; and, from what I can learn, he never has spoken better than he did there where he first began. He was a black, raven-haired fellow, with an eye as black as death's, and as heavy as a lion's, --that same heavy look, not sleepy, but as if he didn't care about anything that was going on about him or anything anywhere else. He didn't look as if he was thinking about anything, but as if he _would_ think like a hurricane if he once got waked up to it. They say the lion looks so when he is quiet. .. . Webster would sometimes be engaged to argue a case just as it was coming to trial. That would set him to thinking. It wouldn't wrinkle his forehead, but made him restless. He would shift his feet about, and run his hand up over his forehead, through his Indian-black hair, and lift his upper lip and show his teeth, which were as white as a hound's. "

Of course the speech so admired then was infinitely below what was doneafterwards. The very next was probably better, for Mr. Webster grewsteadily. This observer, however, tells us not what Mr. Webster said, buthow he looked. It was the personal presence which dwelt with every one atthis time. 

Thus with his wonderful leonine look and large, dark eyes, and with thegrowing fame which he had won, Mr. Webster betook himself to Portsmouth. Hehad met some of the leading lawyers already, but now he was to be broughtinto direct and almost daily competition with them. At that period in NewEngland there was a great rush of men of talent to the bar, then castingoff its colonial fetters and emerging to an independent life. The pulpithad ceased to attract, as of old; medicine was in its infancy; there werenone of the other manifold pursuits of to-day, and politics did not offer acareer apart. Outside of mercantile affairs, therefore, the intellectualforces of the old Puritan commonwealths, overflowing with life, and feelingthe thrill of youthful independence and the confidence of rapid growth inbusiness, wealth, and population, were concentrated in the law. Even in asmall State like New Hampshire, presenting very limited opportunities, there was, relatively speaking, an extraordinary amount of ability amongthe members of the bar, notwithstanding the fact that they had but justescaped from the condition of colonists. Common sense was the divinity ofboth the courts and the profession. The learning was not extensive orprofound, but practical knowledge, sound principles, and shrewd managementwere conspicuous. Jeremiah Smith, the Chief Justice, a man of humor andcultivation, was a well read and able judge; George Sullivan was ready ofspeech and fertile in expedients; and Parsons and Dexter of Massachusetts, both men of national reputation, appeared from time to time in the NewHampshire courts. Among the most eminent was William Plumer, then Senator, and afterwards Governor of the State, a well-trained, clear-headed, judicious man. He was one of Mr. Webster's early antagonists, and defeatedhim in their first encounter. Yet at the same time, although a leader ofthe bar and a United States Senator, he seems to have been oppressed with asense of responsibility and even of inequality by this thin, black-eyedyoung lawyer from the back country. Mr. Plumer was a man of cool andexcellent judgment, and he thought that Mr. Webster on this occasion wastoo excursive and declamatory. He also deemed him better fitted by mind andtemperament for politics than for the law, an opinion fully justified inthe future, despite Mr. Webster's eminence at the bar. In another case, where they were opposed, Mr. Plumer quoted a passage from Peake's "Law ofEvidence. " Mr. Webster criticised the citation as bad law, pronounced thebook a miserable two-penny compilation, and then, throwing it down with afine disdain, said, "So much for Mr. Thomas Peake's compendium of the 'Lawof Evidence. '" Such was his manner that every one present appeared to thinkthe point settled, and felt rather ashamed of ever having heard of Mr. Peake or his unfortunate book. Thereupon Mr. Plumer produced a volume ofreports by which it appeared that the despised passage was taken word forword from one of Lord Mansfield's decisions. The wretched Peake's characterwas rehabilitated, and Mr. Webster silenced. This was an illustration of afailing of Mr. Webster at that time. He was rough and unceremonious, andeven overbearing, both to court and bar, the natural result of a new senseof power in an inexperienced man. This harshness of manner, however, soondisappeared. He learned rapidly to practise the stately and solemn courtesywhich distinguished him through life. 

There was one lawyer, however, at the head of his profession in NewHampshire, who had more effect upon Mr. Webster than any other whom he evermet there or elsewhere. This was the man to whom the Shaker said: "By thysize and thy language[1] I judge that thou art Jeremiah Mason. " Mr. Masonwas one of the greatest common-lawyers this country has ever produced. Keenand penetrating in intellect, he was master of a relentless logic and of astyle which, though simple and homely, was clear and correct to the lastpoint. Slow and deliberate in his movements, and sententious in hisutterances, he dealt so powerfully with evidence and so lucidly withprinciples of law that he rarely failed to carry conviction to his hearers. He was particularly renowned for his success in getting verdicts. Manyyears afterwards Mr. Webster gave it as his deliberate opinion that he hadnever met with a stronger intellect, a mind of more native resources orquicker and deeper vision than were possessed by Mr. Mason, whom in mentalreach and grasp and in closeness of reasoning he would not allow to besecond even to Chief Justice Marshall. Mr. Mason on his side, with hisusual sagacity, at once detected the great talents of Mr. Webster. In thefirst case where they were opposed, a murder trial, Mr. Webster took theplace of the Attorney-General for the prosecution. Mr. Mason, speaking ofthe impression made by his youthful and then unknown opponent, said:--

 "He broke upon me like a thunder shower in July, sudden, portentous, sweeping all before it. It was the first case in which he appeared at our bar; a criminal prosecution in which I had arranged a very pretty defence, as against the Attorney-General, Atkinson, who was able enough in his way, but whom I knew very well how to take. Atkinson being absent, Webster conducted the case for him, and turned, in the most masterly manner, the line of my defences, carrying with him all but one of the jurors, so that I barely saved my client by my best exertions. I was nevermore surprised than by this remarkable exhibition of unexpected power. It surpassed, in some respects, anything which I have ever since seen even in him. "

[Footnote 1: Mr. Mason, as is well known, was six feet seven inches inheight, and his language, always very forcible and direct, was, when he wasirritated, if we may trust tradition, at times somewhat profane. ]

With all his admiration for his young antagonist, however, one cannot helpnoticing that the generous and modest but astute counsel for the defenceended by winning his case. 

Fortune showered many favors upon Mr. Webster, but none more valuable thanthat of having Jeremiah Mason as his chief opponent at the New Hampshirebar. Mr. Mason had no spark of envy in his composition. He not onlyregarded with pleasure the great abilities of Mr. Webster, but he watchedwith kindly interest the rapid rise which soon made this stranger from thecountry his principal competitor and the champion commonly chosen to meethim in the courts. He gave Mr. Webster his friendship, staunch andunvarying, until his death; he gave freely also of his wisdom andexperience in advice and counsel. Best of all was the opportunity ofinstruction and discipline which Mr. Webster gained by repeated contestswith such a man. The strong qualities of Mr. Webster's mind rapidlydeveloped by constant practice and under such influences. He showed moreand more in every case his wonderful instinct for seizing on the very heartof a question, and for extricating the essential points from the midst ofconfused details and clashing arguments. He displayed, too, more stronglyevery day his capacity for close, logical reasoning and for telling retort, backed by a passion and energy none the less effective from being butslowly called into activity. In a word, the unequalled power of statingfacts or principles, which was the predominant quality of Mr. Webster'sgenius, grew steadily with a vigorous vitality while his eloquencedeveloped in a similar striking fashion. Much of this growth andimprovement was due to the sharp competition and bright example of Mr. Mason. But the best lesson that Mr. Webster learned from his wary yetdaring antagonist was in regard to style. When he saw Mr. Mason go close tothe jury box, and in a plain style and conversational manner, forceconviction upon his hearers, and carry off verdict after verdict, Mr. Webster felt as he had never done before the defects of his own modes ofexpression. His florid phrases looked rather mean, insincere, andtasteless, besides being weak and ineffective. From that time he began tostudy simplicity and directness, which ended in the perfection of a styleunsurpassed in modern oratory. The years of Mr. Webster's professional lifein Portsmouth under the tuition of Mr. Mason were of inestimable service tohim. 

Early in this period, also, Mr. Webster gave up his bachelor existence, andmade for himself a home. When he first appeared at church in Portsmouth theminister's daughter noted and remembered his striking features and look, and regarded him as one with great capacities for good or evil. But theinteresting stranger was not destined to fall a victim to any of the youngladies of Portsmouth. In the spring of 1808 he slipped away from his newfriends and returned to Salisbury, where, in May, he was married. The bridehe brought back to Portsmouth was Grace Fletcher, daughter of the ministerof Hopkinton. Mr. Webster is said to have seen her first at church inSalisbury, whither she came on horseback in a tight-fitting black velvetdress, and looking, as he said, "like an angel. " She was certainly a verylovely and charming woman, of delicate and refined sensibilities and brightand sympathetic mind. She was a devoted wife, the object of her husband'sfirst and strongest love, and the mother of his children. It is verypleasant to look at Mr. Webster in his home during these early years of hismarried life. It was a happy, innocent, untroubled time. He was advancingin his profession, winning fame and respect, earning a sufficient income, blessed in his domestic relations, and with his children growing up abouthim. He was social by nature, and very popular everywhere. Genial andaffectionate in disposition, he attached everybody to him, and his heartyhumor, love of mimicry, and fund of anecdote made him a delightfulcompanion, and led Mr. Mason to say that the stage had lost a great actorin Webster. 

But while he was thus enjoying professional success and the contentedhappiness of his fireside, he was slowly but surely drifting into thecurrent of politics, whither his genius led him, and which had for him anirresistible attraction. Mr. Webster took both his politics and hisreligion from his father, and does not appear to have questioned either. Hehad a peculiarly conservative cast of mind. In an age of revolution andscepticism he showed no trace of the questioning spirit which thenprevailed. Even in his earliest years he was a firm believer in existinginstitutions, in what was fixed and established. He had a little of thedisposition of Lord Thurlow, who, when asked by a dissenter why, being anotorious free-thinker, he so ardently supported the Established Church, replied: "I support the Church of England because it is established. Establish your religion, and I'll support that. " But if Mr. Webster tookhis religion and politics from his father in an unquestioning spirit, heaccepted them in a mild form. He was a liberal Federalist because he had awide mental vision, and by nature took broad views of everything. Hisfather, on the other hand, was a rigid, intolerant Federalist of athorough-going Puritan type. Being taken ill once in a town of Democraticproclivities, he begged to be carried home. "I was born a Federalist, " hesaid, "I have lived a Federalist, and I won't die in a Democratic town. " Inthe same way Ezekiel Webster's uncompromising Federalism shut him out frompolitical preferment, and he would never modify his principles one jot inorder to gain the seat in Congress which he might easily have obtained byslight concessions. The broad and liberal spirit of Daniel Webster rosesuperior to the rigid and even narrow opinions of his father and brother, but perhaps it would have been better for him if he had had in addition tohis splendid mind the stern, unbending force of character which made hisfather and brother stand by their principles with immovable Puritandetermination. Liberal as he was, however, in his political opinions, thesame conservative spirit which led him to adopt his creed made him sustainit faithfully and constantly when he had once accepted it. He was a steadyand trusted party man, although neither then nor at any time a blind, unreasoning partisan. 

Mr. Webster came forward gradually as a political leader by occasionaladdresses and speeches, at first with long intervals between them, and thenbecoming more frequent, until at last he found himself fairly engaged in apublic career. In 1804, at the request of some of his father's friends, hepublished a pamphlet, entitled, "An Appeal to Old Whigs, " in the interestof Gilman, the Federal candidate for governor. He seems to have had a verypoor opinion of this performance, and his interest in the success of theparty at that juncture was very slight. In 1805 he delivered a Fourth ofJuly oration at Salisbury, which has not been preserved; and in thefollowing year he gave another before the "Federal gentlemen" of Concord, which was published. The tone of this speech is not very partisan, nor doesit exhibit the bitter spirit of the Federalists, although he attacked theadministration, was violent in urging the protection of commerce, and wasextremely savage in his remarks about France. At times the style isforcible, and even rich, but, as a rule, it is still strained andartificial. The oration begins eagerly with an appeal for the Constitutionand the Republic, the ideas always uppermost in Mr. Webster's mind. As awhole, it shows a distinct improvement in form, but there are no marks ofgenius to raise it above the ordinary level of Fourth of July speeches. Hisnext production was a little pamphlet, published in 1808, on the embargo, which was then paralyzing New England, and crushing out her prosperity. This essay is important because it is the first clear instance of thatwonderful faculty which Mr. Webster had of seizing on the vital point of asubject, and bringing it out in such a way that everybody could see andunderstand it. In this case the point was the distinction between atemporary embargo and one of unlimited duration. Mr. Webster contended thatthe latter was unconstitutional. The great mischief of the embargo was inJefferson's concealed intention that it should be unlimited in point oftime, a piece of recklessness and deceit never fully appreciated until ithad all passed into history. This Mr. Webster detected and brought out asthe most illegal and dangerous feature of the measure, while he alsodiscussed the general policy in its fullest extent. In 1809 he spoke beforethe Phi Beta Kappa Society, upon "The State of our Literature, " an addresswithout especial interest except as showing a very marked improvement instyle, due, no doubt, to the influence of Mr. Mason. 

During the next three years Mr. Webster was completely absorbed in thepractice of his profession, and not until the declaration of war withEngland had stirred and agitated the whole country did he again come beforethe public. The occasion of his reappearance was the Fourth of Julycelebration in 1812, when he addressed the Washington Benevolent Society atPortsmouth. The speech was a strong, calm statement of the grounds ofopposition to the war. He showed that "maritime defence, commercialregulations, and national revenue" were the very corner-stones of theConstitution, and that these great interests had been crippled and abusedby the departure from Washington's policy. He developed, with great force, the principal and the most unanswerable argument of his party, that thenavy had been neglected and decried because it was a Federalist scheme, when a navy was what we wanted above all things, and especially when wewere drifting into a maritime conflict. He argued strongly in favor of anaval war, and measures of naval defence, instead of wasting our resourcesby an invasion of Canada. So far he went strictly with his party, merelyinvigorating and enforcing their well-known principles. But when he came todefining the proper limits of opposition to the war he modified veryessentially the course prescribed by advanced Federalist opinions. Themajority of that party in New England were prepared to go to the very edgeof the narrow legal line which divides constitutional opposition fromtreasonable resistance. They were violent, bitter, and uncompromising intheir language and purposes. From this Mr. Webster was saved by his breadthof view, his clear perceptions, and his intense national feeling. He sayson this point:--

 "With respect to the war in which we are now involved, the course which our principles require us to pursue cannot be doubtful. It is now the law of the land, and as such we are bound to regard it. Resistance and insurrection form no part of our creed. The disciples of Washington are neither tyrants in power nor rebels out. If we are taxed to carry on this war we shall disregard certain distinguished examples and shall pay. If our personal services are required we shall yield them to the precise extent of our constitutional liability. At the same time the world may be assured that we know our rights and shall exercise them. We shall express our opinions on this, as on every measure of the government, --I trust without passion, I am certain without fear. By the exercise of our constitutional right of suffrage, by the peaceable remedy of election, we shall seek to restore wisdom to our councils, and peace to our country. "

This was a sensible and patriotic opposition. It represented the views ofthe moderate Federalists, and traced the lines which Mr. Websterconsistently followed during the first years of his public life. Theaddress concluded by pointing out the French trickery which had provokedthe war, and by denouncing an alliance with French despotism and ambition. 

This oration was printed, and ran at once through two editions. It led tothe selection of Mr. Webster as a delegate to an assembly of the people ofthe county of Rockingham, a sort of mass convention, held in August, 1812. There he was placed on the committee to prepare the address, and was chosento write their report, which was adopted and published. This importantdocument, widely known at the time as the "Rockingham Memorial, " was acareful argument against the war, and a vigorous and able presentation ofthe Federalist views. It was addressed to the President, whom it treatedwith respectful severity. With much skill it turned Mr. Madison's ownarguments against himself, and appealed to public opinion by its clear andconvincing reasoning. In one point the memorial differed curiously from theoration of a month before. The latter pointed to the suffrage as the modeof redress; the former distinctly hinted at and almost threatened secessioneven while it deplored a dissolution of the Union as a possible result ofthe administration's policy. In the one case Mr. Webster was expressing hisown views, in the other he was giving utterance to the opinions of themembers of his party among whom he stood. This little incident shows thesusceptibility to outside influences which formed such an odd trait in thecharacter of a man so imperious by nature. When acting alone, he spoke hisown opinions. When in a situation where public opinion was concentratedagainst him, he submitted to modifications of his views with a curious andindolent indifference. 

The immediate result to Mr. Webster of the ability and tact which hedisplayed at the Rockingham Convention was his election to the thirteenthCongress, where he took his seat in May, 1813. There were then many ablemen in the House. Mr. Clay was Speaker, and on the floor were John C. Calhoun, Langdon Cheves and William Lowndes of South Carolina, Forsyth andTroup of Georgia, Ingersoll of Pennsylvania, Grundy of Tennessee, andMcLean of Ohio, all conspicuous in the young nationalist war party. Maconand Eppes were representatives of the old Jeffersonian Republicans, whilethe Federalists were strong in the possession of such leaders as Pickeringof Massachusetts, Pitkin of Connecticut, Grosvenor and Benson of New York, Hanson of Maryland, and William Gaston of North Carolina. It was a House inwhich any one might have been glad to win distinction. That Mr. Webster wasconsidered, at the outset, to be a man of great promise is shown by thefact that he was placed on the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which Mr. Calhoun was the head, and which, in the war time, was the most importantcommittee of the House. 

Mr. Webster's first act was a characteristic one. Early in June heintroduced a set of resolutions calling upon the President for informationas to the time and mode in which the repeal of the French decrees had beencommunicated to our government. His unerring sagacity in singling out theweak point in his enemy's armor and in choosing his own keenest weapon, wasnever better illustrated than on this occasion. We know now that in thenegotiations for the repeal of the decrees, the French government trickedus into war with England by most profligate lying. It was apparent thenthat there was something wrong, and that either our government had beendeceived, or had withheld the publication of the repealing decree until warwas declared, so that England might not have a pretext for rescinding theobnoxious orders. Either horn of the dilemma, therefore, was disagreeableto the administration, and a disclosure could hardly fail to benefit theFederalists. Mr. Webster supported his resolutions with a terse and simplespeech of explanation, so far as we can judge from the meagre abstractwhich has come down to us. The resolutions, however, were a firebrand, andlighted up an angry and protracted debate, but the ruling party, as Mr. Webster probably foresaw, did not dare to vote them down, and they passedby large majorities. Mr. Webster spoke but once, and then very briefly, during the progress of the debate, and soon after returned to NewHampshire. With the exception of these resolutions, he took no active partwhatever in the business of the House beyond voting steadily with hisparty, a fact of which we may be sure because he was always on the sameside as that staunch old partisan, Timothy Pickering. 

After a summer passed in the performance of his professional duties, Mr. Webster returned to Washington. He was late in his coming, Congress havingbeen in session nearly three weeks when he arrived to find that he had beendropped from the Committee on Foreign Relations. The dominant partyprobably discovered that he was a young man of rather too much promise andtoo formidable an opponent for such an important post. His resolutions hadbeen answered at the previous session, after his departure, and the report, which consisted of a lame explanation of the main point, and an elaboratedefence of the war, had been quietly laid aside. Mr. Webster desired debateon this subject, and succeeded in carrying a reference of the report to acommittee of the whole, but his opponents prevented its ever coming todiscussion. In the long session which ensued, Mr. Webster again tookcomparatively little part in general business, but he spoke oftener thanbefore. He seems to have been reserving his strength and making sure of hisground. He defended the Federalists as the true friends of the navy, and heresisted with great power the extravagant attempt to extend martial law toall citizens suspected of treason. On January 14, 1814, he made a long andwell reported speech against a bill to encourage enlistments. This is thefirst example of the eloquence which Mr. Webster afterwards carried to suchhigh perfection. Some of his subsequent speeches far surpass this one, butthey differ from it in degree, not in kind. He was now master of the styleat which he aimed. The vehicle was perfected and his natural talent gavethat vehicle abundance of thought to be conveyed. The whole speech issimple in form, direct and forcible. It has the elasticity and vigor ofgreat strength, and glows with eloquence in some passages. Here, too, wesee for the first time that power of deliberate and measured sarcasm whichwas destined to become in his hands such a formidable weapon. The floridrhetoric of the early days is utterly gone, and the thought comes to us inthose short and pregnant sentences and in the choice and effective wordswhich were afterwards so typical of the speaker. The speech itself was aparty speech and a presentation of party arguments. It offered nothing new, but the familiar principles had hardly ever been stated in such a strikingand impressive fashion. Mr. Webster attacked the war policy and the conductof the war, and advocated defensive warfare, a navy, and the abandonment ofthe restrictive laws that were ruining our commerce, which had been themain cause of the adoption of the Constitution. The conclusion of thisspeech is not far from the level of Mr. Webster's best work. It is too longfor quotation, but a few sentences will show its quality:--

 "Give up your futile projects of invasion. Extinguish the fires that blaze on your inland frontier. Establish perfect safety and defence there by adequate force. Let every man that sleeps on your soil sleep in security. Stop the blood that flows from the veins of unarmed yeomanry and women and children. Give to the living time to bury and lament their dead in the quietness of private sorrow. Having performed this work of beneficence and mercy on your inland border, turn, and look with the eye of justice and compassion on your vast population along the coast. Unclench the iron grasp of your embargo. Take measures for that end before another sun sets. .. . Let it no longer be said that not one ship of force, built by your hands, yet floats upon the ocean. .. . If then the war must be continued, go to the ocean. If you are seriously contending for maritime rights, go to the theatre where alone those rights can be defended. Thither every indication of your fortune points you. There the united wishes and exertions of the nation will go with you. Even our party divisions, acrimonious as they are, cease at the water's edge. "

Events soon forced the policy urged by Mr. Webster upon the administration, whose friends carried first a modification of the embargo, and before theclose of the session introduced a bill for its total repeal. The difficulttask of advocating this measure devolved upon Mr. Calhoun, who sustainedhis cause more ingeniously than ingenuously. He frankly admitted thatrestriction was a failure as a war measure, but he defended the repeal onthe ground that the condition of affairs in Europe had changed since therestrictive policy was adopted. It had indeed changed since the embargo of1807, but not since the imposition of that of 1813, which was the one underdiscussion. 

Mr. Calhoun laid himself open to most unmerciful retorts, which was hismisfortune, not his fault, for the embargo had been utterly and hopelesslywrong from the beginning. Mr. Webster, however, took full advantage of theopportunity thus presented. His opening congratulations are in his bestvein of stately sarcasm, and are admirably put. He followed this up by anew argument of great force, showing the colonial spirit of the restrictivepolicy. He also dwelt with fresh vigor on the identification with Francenecessitated by the restrictive laws, a reproach which stung Mr. Calhounand his followers more than anything else. He then took up the embargopolicy and tore it to pieces, --no very difficult undertaking, but wellperformed. The shifty and shifting policy of the government was especiallydistasteful to Mr. Webster, with his lofty conception of consistent andsteady statesmanship, a point which is well brought out in the followingpassage:--

 "In a commercial country, nothing can be more objectionable than frequent and violent changes. The concerns of private business do not endure such rude shocks but with extreme inconvenience and great loss. It would seem, however, that there is a class of politicians to whose taste all change is suited, to whom whatever is unnatural seems wise, and all that is violent appears great. .. . The Embargo Act, the Non-Importation Act, and all the crowd of additions and supplements, together with all their garniture of messages, reports, and resolutions, are tumbling undistinguished into one common grave. But yesterday this policy had a thousand friends and supporters; to-day it is fallen and prostrate, and few 'so poor as to do it reverence. ' Sir, a government which cannot administer the affairs of a nation without so frequent and such violent alterations in the ordinary occupations and pursuits of private life, has, in my opinion, little claim to the regard of the community. "

All this is very characteristic of Mr. Webster's temperament in dealingwith public affairs, and is a very good example of his power of dignifiedreproach and condemnation. 

Mr. Calhoun had said at the close of his speech, that the repeal of therestrictive measures should not be allowed to affect the double dutieswhich protected manufactures. Mr. Webster discussed this point at length, defining his own position, which was that of the New England Federalists, who believed in free trade as an abstract principle, and consideredprotection only as an expedient of which they wanted as little as possible. Mr. Webster set forth these views in his usual effective and lucid manner, but they can be considered more fitly at the period when he dealt with thetariff as a leading issue of the day and of his own public life. 

Mr. Webster took no further action of importance at this session, not evenparticipating in the great debate on the loan bill; but, by the manner inwhich these two speeches were referred to and quoted in Congress for manydays after they were delivered, we can perceive the depth of their firstimpression. I have dwelt upon them at length because they are not in thecollected edition of his speeches, where they well deserve a place, and, still more, because they are the first examples of his parliamentaryeloquence which show his characteristic qualities and the action of hismind. Mr. Webster was a man of slow growth, not reaching his highest pointuntil he was nearly fifty years of age, but these two speeches mark anadvanced stage in his progress. The only fresh point that he made was whenhe declared that the embargo was colonial in spirit; and this thoughtproceeded from the vital principle of Mr. Webster's public life, hisintense love for nationality and union, which grew with his growth andstrengthened with his strength. In other respects, these speeches presentedsimply the arguments and opinions of his party. They fell upon the ear ofCongress and the country with a new and ringing sound because they werestated so finely and with such simplicity. Certainly one of them, andprobably both, were delivered without any immediate preparation, but theyreally had the preparation of years, and were the utterance of thoughtswhich had been garnered up by long meditation. He wisely confined himselfat this time to a subject which had been long before his mind, and uponwhich he had gathered all the essential points by observation and by astudy of the multitude of speeches and essays with which the country hadbeen deluged. These early speeches, like some of the best of his prime, although nominally unprepared, were poured forth from the overflowingresources which had been the fruit of months of reflection, and which hadbeen stored up by an unyielding memory. They had really been in preparationever since the embargo pamphlet of 1808, and that was one reason for theirripeness and terseness, for their easy flow and condensed force. I haveexamined with care the debates in that Congress. There were many able andexperienced speakers on the floor. Mr. Clay, it is true, took no part, andearly in the session went to Europe. But Mr. Calhoun led in debate, andthere were many others second only to him. Among all the speeches, however, Mr. Webster's stand out in sharp relief. His utterances were as clear anddirect as those of Mr. Calhoun, but they had none of the South Carolinian'sdryness. We can best judge of their merit and their effect by comparingthem with those of his associates. They were not only forcible, but theywere vivid also and full of life, and his words when he was roused felllike the blows of a hammer on an anvil. They lacked the polish and richnessof his later efforts, but the force and power of statement and the purityof diction were all there, and men began to realize that one destined togreat achievements had entered the field of American politics. 

This was very apparent when Mr. Webster came back to Washington for theextra session called in September, 1814. Although he had made previouslybut two set speeches, and had taken comparatively little part in every-daydebate, he was now acknowledged, after his few months of service, to be oneof the foremost men in the House, and the strongest leader in his party. Hediffered somewhat at this time from the prevailing sentiment of theFederalists in New England, for the guiding principle of his life, his loveof nationality, overrode all other influences. He discountenanced themeasures which led to the Hartford Convention, and he helped to keep NewHampshire out of that movement; but it is an entire mistake to representhim as an independent Federalist at this period. The days of Mr. Webster'sindependent politics came later, when the Federalists had ceased to existas a party and when no new ties had been formed. In the winter of 1814 and1815, although, like many of the moderate Federalists, he disapproved ofthe separatist movement in New England, on all other party questions heacted consistently with the straitest of the sect. Sensibly enough, he didnot consider the convention at Hartford, although he had nothing to do withit, either treasonable or seditious; and yet, much as he disliked itssupposed purposes, he did not hesitate, in a speech on the Enlistment Bill, to use them as a threat to deter the administration from war measures. Thiswas a favorite Federalist practice, gloomily to point out at this time thegathering clouds of domestic strife, in order to turn the administrationback from war, that poor frightened administration of Mr. Madison, whichhad for months been clutching frantically at every straw which seemed topromise a chance of peace. 

But although Mr. Webster went as steadily and even more strongly with hisparty in this session, he did more and better service than ever before, partly, perhaps, because on the questions which arose, his party was, inthe main, entirely right. The strength of his party feeling is shown by hisattitude in regard to the war taxes, upon which he made a quiet buteffective speech. He took the ground that, as a member of the minority, hecould not prevent the taxes nor stop hostilities, but he could protestagainst the war, its conduct, and its authors, by voting against the taxes. There is a nice question of political ethics here as to how far anopposition ought to go in time of national war and distress, but it iscertainly impossible to give a more extreme expression to parliamentaryopposition than to refuse the supplies at a most critical moment in asevere conflict. To this last extreme of party opposition to theadministration, Mr. Webster went. It was as far as he could go and remainloyal to the Union. But there he stopped absolutely. With the next step, which went outside the Union, and which his friends at home wereconsidering, he would have nothing to do, and he would not countenance anyseparatist schemes. In the national Congress, however, he was prepared toadvance as far as the boldest and bitterest in opposition, and he eithervoted against the war taxes or abstained from voting on them, in companywith the strictest partisans of the Pickering type. 

There is no need to suppose from this that Mr. Webster had lost in theleast the liberality or breadth of view which always characterized him. Hewas no narrower then than when he entered Congress, or than when he leftit. He went with his party because he believed it to be right, --as at thatmoment it undoubtedly was. The party, however, was still extreme andbitter, as it had been for ten years, but Mr. Webster was neither. He wentall lengths with his friends in Congress, but he did not share theirintensity of feeling or their fierce hostility to individuals. TheFederalists, for instance, as a rule had ceased to call upon Mr. Madison, but in such intolerance Mr. Webster declined to indulge. He was always ongood terms with the President and with all the hostile leaders. Hisopposition was extreme in principle, but not in manner; it was vigorous anduncompromising, but also stately and dignified. It was part of his largeand indolent nature to accept much and question little; to take the ideasmost easy and natural to him, those of his friends and associates, and ofhis native New England, without needless inquiry and investigation. It waspart of the same nature, also, to hold liberal views after he had fairlytaken sides, and never, by confounding individuals with principles andpurposes, to import into politics the fiery, biting element of personalhatred and malice. 

His position in the House once assured, we find Mr. Webster taking a muchmore active part in the daily debates than before. On these occasions wehear of his "deliberate, conversational" manner, another of the lessonslearned from Mr. Mason when that gentleman, standing so close to thejury-box that he could have "laid his finger on the foreman's nose, " as Mr. Webster said, chatted easily with each juryman, and won a succession ofverdicts. But besides the daily debate, Mr. Webster spoke at length onseveral important occasions. This was the case with the Enlistment Bill, which involved a forced draft, including minors, and was deemedunconstitutional by the Federalists. Mr. Webster had "a hand, " as he putsit, --a strong one, we may be sure, --in killing "Mr. Monroe's conscription. "

The most important measure, however, with which Mr. Webster was called todeal, and to which he gave his best efforts, was the attempt to establish anational bank. There were three parties in the House on this question. Thefirst represented the "old Republican" doctrines, and was opposed to anybank. The second represented the theories of Hamilton and the Federalists, and favored a bank with a reasonable capital, specie-paying, and free todecide about making loans to the government. The third body was composed ofmembers of the national war-party, who were eager for a bank merely to helpthe government out of its appalling difficulties. They, therefore, favoredan institution of large capital, non-specie-paying, and obliged to makeheavy loans to the government, which involved, of course, an irredeemablepaper currency. In a word, there was the party of no bank, the party of aspecie bank, and the party of a huge paper-money bank. The second of theseparties, with which of course Mr. Webster acted, held the key of thesituation. No bank could be established unless it was based on theirprinciples. The first bill, proposing a paper-money bank, originated in theHouse, and was killed there by a strong majority, Mr. Webster making a longspeech against it which has not been preserved. The next bill came from theSenate, and was also for a paper-money bank. Against this scheme Mr. Webster made a second elaborate speech, which is reprinted in his works. His genius for arranging and stating facts held its full strength inquestions of finance, and he now established his reputation as a master inthat difficult department of statesmanship. His recent studies ofeconomical questions in late English works and in English history gavefreshness to what he said, and in clearness of argument, in range of view, and wisdom of judgment, he showed himself a worthy disciple of the schoolof Hamilton. His argument proceeded on the truest economical and commercialprinciples, and was, indeed, unanswerable. He then took his stand as thefoe of irredeemable paper, whether in war or peace, and of wild, unrestrained banking, a position from which he never wavered, and insupport of which he rendered to the country some of his best service as apublic man. The bill was defeated by the casting vote of the Speaker. Whenthe result was announced, Mr. Calhoun was utterly overwhelmed. He caredlittle for the bank but deeply for the government, which, as it was notknown that peace had been made, seemed to be on the verge of ruin. He cameover to Mr. Webster, and, bursting into tears, begged the latter to aid inestablishing a proper bank, a request which was freely granted. 

The vote was then reconsidered, the bill recommitted and brought back, witha reduced capital, and freed from the government power to force loans andsuspend specie payments. This measure was passed by a large majority, composed of the Federalists and the friends of the government, but it wasthe plan of the former which had prevailed. The President vetoed the billfor a variety of reasons, duly stated, but really, as Mr. Webster said, because a sound bank of this sort was not in favor with the administration. Another paper-money scheme was introduced, and the conflict began again, but was abruptly terminated by the news of peace, and on March 4 thethirteenth Congress came to an end. 

The fourteenth Congress, to which he had been reëlected, Mr. Webster saidmany years afterward, was the most remarkable for talents of any he hadever seen. To the leaders of marked ability in the previous Congress, mostof whom had been reëlected, several others were added. Mr. Clay returnedfrom Europe to take again an active part. Mr. Pinkney, the most eminentpractising lawyer in the country, recently Attorney-General and Minister toEngland, whom John Randolph, with characteristic insolence, "believed to befrom Maryland, " was there until his appointment to the Russian mission. Last, but not least, there was John Randolph himself, wildly eccentric andvenomously eloquent, --sometimes witty, always odd and amusing, talkingincessantly on everything, so that the reporters gave him up in despair, and with whom Mr. Webster came to a definite understanding before the closeof the session. 

Mr. Webster did not take his seat until February, being detained at theNorth by the illness of his daughter Grace. When he arrived he foundCongress at work upon a bank bill possessing the same objectionablefeatures of paper money and large capital as the former schemes which hehad helped to overthrow. He began his attack upon this dangerous plan byconsidering the evil condition of the currency. He showed that the currencyof the United States was sound because it was gold and silver, in hisopinion the only constitutional medium, but that the country was flooded bythe irredeemable paper of the state banks. Congress could not regulate thestate banks, but they could force them to specie payments by refusing toreceive any notes which were not paid in specie by the bank which issuedthem. Passing to the proposed national bank, he reiterated the ablearguments which he had made in the previous Congress against the largecapital, the power to suspend specie payments, and the stock feature of thebank, which he thought would lead to speculation and control by the statebanks. This last point is the first instance of that financial foresightfor which Mr. Webster was so remarkable, and which shows so plainly thesoundness of his knowledge in regard to economical matters. A violentspeculation in bank stock did ensue, and the first years of the newinstitution were troubled, disorderly, and anything but creditable. Theopposition of Mr. Webster and those who thought with him, resulted in thereduction of the capital and the removal of the power to suspend speciepayments. But although shorn of its most obnoxious features, Mr. Webstervoted against the bill on its final passage on account of the participationpermitted to the government in its management. He was quite right, but, after the bank was well established, he supported it as Lord Thurlowpromised to do in regard to the dissenter's religion. Indeed, Mr. Websterultimately so far lost his original dislike to this bank that he became oneof its warmest adherents. The plan was defective, but the scheme, on thewhole, worked better than had been expected. 

Immediately after the passage of the bank bill, Mr. Calhoun introduced abill requiring the revenue to be collected in lawful money of the UnitedStates. A sharp debate ensued, and the bill was lost. Mr. Webster at onceoffered resolutions requiring all government dues to be paid in coin, inTreasury notes, or in notes of the Bank of the United States. He supportedthese resolutions, thus daringly put forward just after the principle theyinvolved had been voted down, in a speech of singular power, clear, convincing, and full of information and illustration. He elaborated theideas contained in his previous remarks on the currency, displaying withgreat force the evils of irredeemable paper, and the absolute necessity ofa sound currency based on specie payments. He won a signal victory by thepassage of his resolutions, which brought about resumption, and, after thebank was firmly established, gave us a sound currency and a safe medium ofexchange. This was one of the most conspicuous services ever rendered byMr. Webster to the business interests and good government of the country, and he deserves the full credit, for he triumphed where Mr. Calhoun hadjust been defeated. 

Mr. Webster took more or less part in all the questions which afterwardsarose in the House, especially on the tariff, but his great efforts werethose devoted to the bank and the currency. The only other incident of thesession was an invitation to fight a duel sent him by John Randolph. Thiswas the only challenge ever received by Mr. Webster. He never could haveseemed a very happy subject for such missives, and, moreover, he neverindulged in language calculated to provoke them. Randolph, however, wouldhave challenged anybody or anything, from Henry Clay to a field-mouse, ifthe fancy happened to strike him. Mr. Webster's reply is a model of dignityand veiled contempt. He refused to admit Randolph's right to anexplanation, alluded to that gentleman's lack of courtesy in the House, denied his right to call him out, and wound up by saying that he did notfeel bound to risk his life at any one's bidding, but should "always beprepared to repel, in a suitable manner, the aggression of any man who maypresume on this refusal. " One cannot help smiling over this last clause, with its suggestion of personal violence, as the two men rise before thefancy, --the big, swarthy black-haired son of the northern hills, with hisrobust common sense, and the sallow, lean, sickly Virginia planter, notmany degrees removed mentally from the patients in Bedlam. 

In the affairs of the next session of the fourteenth Congress Mr. Webstertook scarcely any part. He voted for Mr. Calhoun's internal improvementbill, although without entering the debate, and he also voted to pass thebill over Mr. Madison's veto. This was sound Hamiltonian Federalism, and inentire consonance with the national sentiments of Mr. Webster. On theconstitutional point, which he is said to have examined with some care, hedecided in accordance with the opinions of his party, and with the doctrineof liberal construction, to which he always adhered. 

On March 4, 1817, the fourteenth Congress expired, and with it the term ofMr. Webster's service. Five years were to intervene before he againappeared in the arena of national politics. This retirement from activepublic life was due to professional reasons. In nine years Mr. Webster hadattained to the very summit of his profession in New Hampshire. He wasearning two thousand dollars a year, and in that hardy and poor communityhe could not hope to earn more. To a man with such great and productivetalents, and with a growing family, a larger field had become an absolutenecessity. In June, 1816, therefore, Mr. Webster removed from Portsmouth toBoston. That he gained by the change is apparent from the fact that thefirst year after his removal his professional income did not fall short oftwenty thousand dollars. The first suggestion of the possibilities ofwealth offered to his abilities in a suitable field came from his going toWashington. There, in the winter of 1813 and 1814, he was admitted to thebar of the Supreme Court of the United States, before which he tried two orthree cases, and this opened the vista of a professional career, which hefelt would give him verge and room enough, as well as fit remuneration. From this beginning the Supreme Court practice, which soon led to theremoval to Boston, rapidly increased, until, in the last session of histerm, it occupied most of his time. This withdrawal from the duties ofCongress, however, was not due to a sacrifice of his time to hisprofessional engagements, but to the depression caused by his first greatgrief, which must have rendered the noise and dust of debate mostdistasteful to him. Mr. And Mrs. Webster had arrived in Washington for thislast session, in December, 1816, and were recalled to Boston by the illnessof their little daughter Grace, who was their oldest child, singularlybright and precocious, with much of her father's look and talent, and ofher mother's sensibility. She was a favorite with her father, and tenderlybeloved by him. After her parents' return she sank rapidly, the victim ofconsumption. When the last hour was at hand, the child, rousing from sleep, asked for her father. He came, raised her upon his arm, and, as he did so, she smiled upon him and died. It is a little incident in the life of agreat man, but a child's instinct does not err at such a moment, and herdying smile sheds a flood of soft light upon the deep and warm affectionsof Mr. Webster's solemn and reserved nature. It was the first great grief. Mr. Webster wept convulsively as he stood beside the dead, and those whosaw that stately creature so wrung by anguish of the heart never forgot thesight. 

Thus the period which began at Portsmouth in 1807 closed in Boston, in1817, with the death of the eldest born. In that decade Mr. Webster hadadvanced with great strides from the position of a raw and youthful lawyerin a back country town of New Hampshire. He had reached the highestprofessional eminence in his own State, and had removed to a wider sphere, where he at once took rank with the best lawyers. He was a leadingpractitioner in the highest national court. During his two terms inCongress he had become a leader of his party, and had won a solid nationalreputation. In those years he had rendered conspicuous service to thebusiness interests of the nation, and had established himself as one of theablest statesmen of the country in matters of finance. He had defined hisposition on the tariff as a free-trader in theory and a very moderateprotectionist when protection was unavoidable, a true representative of thedoctrine of the New England Federalists. He had taken up his ground as thechampion of specie payments and of the liberal interpretation of theConstitution, which authorized internal improvements. While he had notshrunk from extreme opposition to the administration during the war, he hadkept himself entirely clear from the separatist sentiment of New England inthe year 1814. He left Congress with a realizing sense of his own growingpowers, and, rejoicing in his strength, he turned to his profession and tohis new duties in his new home. 

CHAPTER III. 

THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. --MR. WEBSTER AS A LAWYER. 

There is a vague tradition that when Mr. Webster took up his residence inBoston, some of the worthies of that ancient Puritan town were disposed atfirst to treat him rather cavalierly and make him understand that becausehe was great in New Hampshire it did not follow that he was also great inMassachusetts. They found very quickly, however, that it was worse thanuseless to attempt anything of this sort with a man who, by his mere lookand presence whenever he entered a room, drew all eyes to himself andhushed the murmur of conversation. It is certain that Mr. Webster soonfound himself the friend and associate of all the agreeable anddistinguished men of the town, and that he rapidly acquired that generalpopularity which, in those days, went with him everywhere. It is alsocertain that he at once and without effort assumed the highest position atthe bar as the recognized equal of its most eminent leaders. With an incomeincreased tenfold and promising still further enlargement, a practice inwhich one fee probably surpassed the earnings of three months in NewHampshire, with an agreeable society about him, popular abroad, happy andbeloved at home, nothing could have been more auspicious than these openingyears of his life in Boston. 

The period upon which he then entered, and during which he withdrew fromactive public service to devote himself to his profession, was a veryimportant one in his career. It was a period marked by a rapid intellectualgrowth and by the first exhibition of his talents on a large scale. Itembraces, moreover, two events, landmarks in the life of Mr. Webster, whichplaced him before the country as one of the first and the most eloquent ofher constitutional lawyers, and as the great master in the art ofoccasional oratory. The first of these events was the argument in theDartmouth College case; the second was the delivery of the Plymouthoration. 

I do not propose to enter into or discuss the merits or demerits of theconstitutional and legal theories and principles involved in the famous"college causes, " or in any other of the great cases subsequently argued byMr. Webster. In a biography of this kind it is sufficient to examine Mr. Webster's connection with the Dartmouth College case, and endeavor, by astudy of his arguments in that and in certain other hardly less importantcauses, to estimate properly the character and quality of his abilities asa lawyer, both in the ordinary acceptation of the term and in dealing withconstitutional questions. 

The complete history of the Dartmouth College case is very curious anddeserves more than a passing notice. Until within three years it is not toomuch to say that it was quite unknown, and its condition is but littlebetter now. In 1879 Mr. John M. Shirley published a volume entitled the"Dartmouth College Causes, " which is a monument of careful study andthorough research. Most persons would conclude that it was a work of merelylegal interest, appealing to a limited class of professional readers. Eventhose into whose hands it chanced to come have probably been deterred fromexamining it as it deserves by the first chapter, which is very obscure, and by the confusion of the narrative which follows. Yet this monograph, which has so unfortunately suffered from a defective arrangement ofmaterial, is of very great value, not only to our legal and constitutionalhistory, but to the political history of the time and to a knowledge of thedistinguished actors in a series of events which resulted in theestablishment of one of the most far-reaching of constitutional doctrines, one that has been a living question ever since the year 1819, and is atthis moment of vast practical importance. Mr. Shirley has drawn forth fromthe oblivion of manuscript a collection of documents which, taken inconjunction with those already in print, throws a flood of light upon adark place of the past and gives to a dry constitutional question the vitaland human interest of political and personal history. 

In his early days, Eleazer Wheelock, the founder of Dartmouth College, hadhad much religious controversy with Dr. Bellamy of Connecticut, who waslike himself a graduate of Yale. Wheelock was a Presbyterian and a liberal, Bellamy a Congregationalist and strictly orthodox. The charter of Dartmouthwas free from any kind of religious discrimination. By his will the elderWheelock provided in such a way that his son succeeded him in thepresidency of the college. In 1793 Judge Niles, a pupil of Bellamy, becamea trustee of the college, and he and John Wheelock represented the oppositeviews which they respectively inherited from tutor and father. They wereformed for mutual hostility, and the contest began some twelve years beforeit reached the public. The trustees and the president were then allFederalists, and there would seem to have been no differences of either apolitical or a religious nature. The trouble arose from the resistance of aminority of the trustees to what they termed the "family dynasty. "Wheelock, however, maintained his ascendency until 1809, when his enemiesobtained a majority in the board of trustees, and thereafter admitted nofriend of the president to the government, and used every effort to subduethe dominant dynasty. 

In New Hampshire, at that period, the Federalists were the ruling party, and the Congregationalists formed the state church. The people were, inpractice, taxed to support Congregational churches, and the clergy of thatdenomination were exempted from taxation. All the Congregational ministerswere stanch Federalists and most of their parishioners were of the sameparty. The college, the only seat of learning in the State, was one of theFederalist and Congregational strongholds. 

After several years of fruitless and bitter conflict, the Wheelock party, in 1815, brought their grievances before the public in an elaboratepamphlet. This led to a rejoinder and a war of pamphlets ensued, which wassoon transferred to the newspapers, and created a great sensation and aprofound interest. Wheelock now contemplated legal proceedings. Mr. Plumerwas in ill health, Judge Smith and Mr. Mason were allied with the trustees, and the president therefore went to Mr. Webster, consulted himprofessionally, paid him, and obtained a promise of his future services. About the time of this consultation, Wheelock sent a memorial to theLegislature, charging the trustees with misapplication of the funds, andvarious breaches of trust, religious intolerance, and a violation of thecharter in their attacks upon the presidential office, and prayed for acommittee of investigation. The trustees met him boldly and offered asturdy resistance, denying all the charges, especially that of religiousintolerance; but the committee was voted by a large majority. On August5th, Wheelock, as soon as he learned that the committee was to have ahearing, wrote to Mr. Webster, reminding him of their consultation, inclosing a fee of twenty dollars, and asking him to appear before thecommittee. Mr. Webster did not come, and Wheelock had to go on as best hecould without him. One of Wheelock's friends, Mr. Dunham, wrote a veryindignant letter to Mr. Webster on his failure to appear; to which Mr. Webster replied that he had seen Wheelock and they had contemplated a suitin court, but that at the time of the hearing he was otherwise engaged, andmoreover that he did not regard a summons to appear before a legislativecommittee as a professional call, adding that he was by no means sure thatthe president was wholly in the right. The truth was, that many of Mr. Webster's strongest personal and political friends, and most of the leaderswith whom he was associated in the control of the Federalist party, wereeither trustees themselves or closely allied with the trustees. In theinterval between the consultation with Wheelock and the committee hearing, these friends and leaders saw Mr. Webster, and pointed out to him that hemust not desert them, and that this college controversy was fast developinginto a party question. Mr. Webster was convinced, and abandoned Wheelock, making, as has been seen, a very unsatisfactory explanation of his conduct. In this way he finally parted company with Wheelock, and was thereafterirrevocably engaged on the side of the trustees. 

Events now moved rapidly. The trustees, without heeding the advice of Mr. Mason to delay, removed Wheelock from the presidency, and appointed in hisplace the Rev. Francis Brown. This fanned the flame of popular excitement, and such a defiance of the legislative committee threw the whole questioninto politics. As Mr. Mason had foreseen when he warned the trusteesagainst hasty action, all the Democrats, all members of sects other thanthe Congregational, and all freethinkers generally, were united against thetrustees, and consequently against the Federalists. The election came on. Wheelock, who was a Federalist, went over to the enemy, carrying hisfriends with him, and Mr. Plumer, the Democratic candidate, was electedGovernor, together with a Democratic Legislature. Mr. Webster perceived atonce that the trustees were in a bad position. He advised that every effortshould be made to soothe the Democrats, and that the purpose of founding anew college should be noised abroad, in order to create alarm. Strategy, however, was vain. Governor Plumer declared against the trustees in hismessage, and the Legislature in June, 1816, despite every sort of protestand remonstrance, passed an act to reorganize the college, and virtually toplace it within the control of the State. The Governor and council at onceproceeded to choose trustees and overseers under the new law, and amongthose thus selected was Joseph Story of Massachusetts. 

Both boards of trustees assembled. The old board turned out Judge Woodward, their secretary, who was a friend to Wheelock and secretary also of the newboard, and, receiving a thousand dollars from a friend of one of theprofessors, resolved to fight. President Brown refused to obey the summonsof the new trustees, who expelled the old board by resolution. Thereuponthe old board brought suit against Woodward for the college seal and otherproperty, and the case came on for trial in May, 1817. Mr. Mason and JudgeSmith appeared for the college, George Sullivan and Ichabod Bartlett forWoodward and the state board. The case was argued and then went over to theSeptember term of the same year, at Exeter, when Mason and Smith werejoined by Mr. Webster. 

The cause was then argued again on both sides and with signal ability. Inpoint of talent the counsel for the college were vastly superior to theiropponents, but Sullivan and Bartlett were nevertheless strong men andthoroughly prepared. Sullivan was a good lawyer and a fluent and readyspeaker, with great power of illustration. Bartlett was a shrewd, hard-headed man, very keen and incisive, and one whom it was impossible tooutwit or deceive. He indulged, in his argument, in some severe reflectionsupon Mr. Webster's conduct toward Wheelock, which so much incensed Mr. Webster that he referred to Mr. Bartlett's argument in a most contemptuousway, and strenuously opposed the publication of the remarks "personal orinjurious to counsel. "

The weight of the argument for the college fell upon Mason and Smith, whospoke for two and four hours respectively. Sullivan and Bartlett occupiedthree hours, and the next day Mr. Webster closed for the plaintiffs in aspeech of two hours. Mr. Webster spoke with great force, going evidentlybeyond the limits of legal argument, and winding up with a splendidsentimental appeal which drew tears from the crowd in the Exetercourt-room, and which he afterwards used in an elaborated form and withsimilar effect before the Supreme Court at Washington. 

It now becomes necessary to state briefly the points at issue in this case, which were all fully argued by the counsel on both sides. Mr. Mason'sbrief, which really covered the whole case, was that the acts of theLegislature were not obligatory, 1, because they were not within thegeneral scope of legislative power; 2, because they violated certainprovisions of the Constitution of New Hampshire restraining legislativepower; 3, because they violated the Constitution of the United States. InFarrar's report of Mason's speech, twenty-three pages are devoted to thefirst point, eight to the second, and six to the third. In other words, thethird point, involving the great constitutional doctrine on which the casewas finally decided at Washington, the doctrine that the Legislature, byits acts, had impaired the obligation of a contract, was passed overlightly. In so doing Mr. Mason was not alone. Neither he nor Judge Smithnor Mr. Webster nor the court nor the counsel on the other side, attachedmuch importance to this point. Curiously enough, the theory had beenoriginated many years before, by Wheelock himself, at a time when heexpected that the minority of the trustees would invoke the aid of theLegislature against him, and his idea had been remembered. It was revivedat the time of the newspaper controversy, and was pressed upon theattention of the trustees and upon that of their counsel. But the lawyersattached little weight to the suggestion, although they introduced it andargued it briefly. Mason, Smith, and Webster all relied for success on theground covered by the first point in Mason's brief. This is called by Mr. Shirley the "Parsons view, " from the fact that it was largely drawn from anargument made by Chief Justice Parsons in regard to visitatorial powers atHarvard College. Briefly stated, the argument was that the college was aninstitution founded by private persons for particular uses; that thecharter was given to perpetuate such uses; that misconduct of the trusteeswas a question for the courts, and that the Legislature, by itsinterference, transcended its powers. To these general principles, strengthened by particular clauses in the Constitution of New Hampshire, the counsel for the college trusted for victory. The theory of impairingthe obligation of contracts they introduced, but they did not insist on it, or hope for much from it. On this point, however, and, of course, on thisalone, the case went up to the Supreme Court. In December, 1817, Mr. Webster wrote to Mr. Mason, regretting that the case went up on "one pointonly. " He occupied himself at this time in devising cases which shouldraise what he considered the really vital points, and which, coming withinthe jurisdiction of the United States, could be taken to the Circuit Court, and thence to the Supreme Court at Washington. These cases, in accordancewith his suggestion, were begun, but before they came on in the CircuitCourt, Mr. Webster made his great effort in Washington. Three quarters ofhis legal argument were there devoted to the points in the Circuit Courtcases, which were not in any way before the Supreme Court in the Collegevs. Woodward. So little, indeed, did Mr. Webster think of the greatconstitutional question which has made the case famous, that he forced theother points in where he admitted that they had no proper standing, andargued them at length. They were touched upon by Marshall, who, however, decided wholly upon the constitutional question, and they were all thrownaside by Judge Washington, who declared them irrelevant, and rested hisdecision solely and properly on the constitutional point. Two months afterhis Washington argument, Mr. Webster, still urging forward the CircuitCourt cases, wrote to Mr. Mason that all the questions must be broughtproperly before the Supreme Court, and that, on the "general principle"that the State Legislature could not divest vested rights, strengthened bythe constitutional provisions of New Hampshire, he was sure they coulddefeat their adversaries. Thus this doctrine of "impairing the obligationof contracts, " which produced a decision in its effects more far-reachingand of more general interest than perhaps any other ever made in thiscountry, was imported into the case at the suggestion of laymen, was littleesteemed by counsel, and was comparatively neglected in every argument. 

It is necessary to go back now, for a moment, in the history of the case. The New Hampshire court decided against the plaintiffs on every point, andgave a very strong and elaborate judgment, which Mr. Webster acknowledgedwas "able, plausible, and ingenious. " After much wrangling, the counselagreed on a special verdict, and took the case up on a writ of error to theSupreme Court. Mason and Smith were unable or unwilling to go toWashington, and the case was intrusted to Mr. Webster, who secured theassistance of Mr. Joseph Hopkinson of Philadelphia. The case for the State, hitherto ably managed, was now confided to Mr. John Holmes of Maine, andMr. Wirt, the Attorney-General, who handled it very badly. Holmes, anactive, fluent Democratic politician, made a noisy, rhetorical, politicalspeech, which pleased his opponents and disgusted his clients and theirfriends. Mr. Wirt, loaded with business cares of every sort, came intocourt quite unprepared, and endeavored to make up for his deficiencies bydeclamation. On the other side the case was managed with consummate skill. Hopkinson was a sound lawyer, and, being thoroughly prepared, made a goodlegal argument. The burden of the conflict was, however, borne by Mr. Webster, who was more interested personally than professionally, and who, having raised money in Boston to defray the expenses of the suit, came intothe arena at Washington armed to the teeth, and in the full lustre of hisgreat powers. 

The case was heard on March 10, 1818, and was opened by Mr. Webster. He hadstudied the arguments of his adversaries below, and the vigorous hostileopinion of the New Hampshire judges. He was in possession of the thoroughargument emanating from the penetrating mind of Mr. Mason and fortified andextended by the ample learning and judicial wisdom of Judge Smith. To thework of his eminent associates he could add nothing more than one not veryimportant point, and a few cases which his far-ranging and retentive memorysupplied. All the notes, minutes, and arguments of Smith and Mason were inhis hands. It is only just to say that Mr. Webster tells all this himself, and that he gives all credit to his colleagues, whose arguments he says "heclumsily put together, " and of which he adds that he could only be thereciter. The faculty of obtaining and using the valuable work of other men, one of the characteristic qualities of a high and commanding order of mind, was even then strong in Mr. Webster. But in that bright period of earlymanhood it was accompanied by a frank and generous acknowledgment of alland more than all the intellectual aid he received from others. He trulyand properly awarded to Mason and Smith all the credit for the law and forthe legal points and theories set forth on their side, and modestly saysthat he was merely the arranger and reciter of other men's thoughts. Buthow much that arrangement and recitation meant! There were, perhaps, nolawyers better fitted than Mason and Smith to examine a case and prepare anargument enriched with everything that learning and sagacity could suggest. But when Mr. Webster burst upon the court and the nation with this greatappeal, it was certain that there was no man in the land who could soarrange arguments and facts, who could state them so powerfully and withsuch a grand and fitting eloquence. 

The legal part of the argument was printed in Farrar's report and also inWheaton's, after it had been carefully revised by Mr. Webster with thearguments of his colleagues before him. This legal and constitutionaldiscussion shows plainly enough Mr. Webster's easy and firm grasp of factsand principles, and his power of strong, effective, and lucid statement;but it is in its very nature dry, cold, and lawyer-like. It gives noconception of the glowing vehemence of the delivery, or of those omittedportions of the speech which dealt with matters outside the domain of law, and which were introduced by Mr. Webster with such telling and importantresults. He spoke for five hours, but in the printed report his speechoccupies only three pages more than that of Mr. Mason in the court below. Both were slow speakers, and thus there is a great difference in time to beaccounted for, even after making every allowance for the peroration whichwe have from another source, and for the wealth of legal and historicalillustration with which Mr. Webster amplified his presentation of thequestion. "Something was left out, " Mr. Webster says, and that somethingwhich must have occupied in its delivery nearly an hour was the mostconspicuous example of the generalship by which Mr. Webster achievedvictory, and which was wholly apart from his law. This art of managementhad already been displayed in the treatment of the cases made up for theCircuit Courts, and in the elaborate and irrelevant legal discussion whichMr. Webster introduced before the Supreme Court. But this management nowentered on a much higher stage, where it was destined to win victory, andexhibited in a high degree tact and knowledge of men. Mr. Webster was fullyaware that he could rely, in any aspect of the case, upon the sympathy ofMarshall and Washington. He was equally certain of the unyieldingopposition of Duvall and Todd; the other three judges, Johnson, Livingston, and Story, were known to be adverse to the college, but were possibleconverts. The first point was to increase the sympathy of the Chief Justiceto an eager and even passionate support. Mr. Webster knew the chord tostrike, and he touched it with a master hand. This was the "something leftout, " of which we know the general drift, and we can easily imagine theeffect. In the midst of all the legal and constitutional arguments, relevant and irrelevant, even in the pathetic appeal which he used so wellin behalf of his Alma Mater, Mr. Webster boldly and yet skilfullyintroduced the political view of the case. So delicately did he do it thatan attentive listener did not realize that he was straying from the fieldof "mere reason" into that of political passion. Here no man could equalhim or help him, for here his eloquence had full scope, and on this herelied to arouse Marshall, whom he thoroughly understood. In occasionalsentences he pictured his beloved college under the wise rule ofFederalists and of the Church. He depicted the party assault that was madeupon her. He showed the citadel of learning threatened with unholy invasionand falling helplessly into the hands of Jacobins and freethinkers. As thetide of his resistless and solemn eloquence, mingled with his masterlyargument, flowed on, we can imagine how the great Chief Justice roused likean old war-horse at the sound of the trumpet. The words of the speakercarried him back to the early years of the century, when, in the full flushof manhood, at the head of his court, the last stronghold of Federalism, the last bulwark of sound government, he had faced the power of thetriumphant Democrats. Once more it was Marshall against Jefferson, --thejudge against the President. Then he had preserved the ark of theConstitution. Then he had seen the angry waves of popular feeling breakingvainly at his feet. Now, in his old age, the conflict was revived. Jacobinism was raising its sacrilegious hand against the temples oflearning, against the friends of order and good government. The joy ofbattle must have glowed once more in the old man's breast as he graspedanew his weapons and prepared with all the force of his indomitable will toraise yet another constitutional barrier across the path of his ancientenemies. 

We cannot but feel that Mr. Webster's lost passages, embodying thispolitical appeal, did the work, and that the result was settled when thepolitical passions of the Chief Justice were fairly aroused. Marshall wouldprobably have brought about the decision by the sole force of his imperiouswill. But Mr. Webster did a good deal of effective work after the argumentswere all finished, and no account of the case would be complete without aglance at the famous peroration with which he concluded his speech and inwhich he boldly flung aside all vestige of legal reasoning, and spokedirectly to the passions and emotions of his hearers. 

When he had finished his argument he stood silent for some moments, untilevery eye was fixed upon him, then, addressing the Chief Justice, hesaid:--

 This, sir, is my case. It is the case not merely of that humble institution, it is the case of every college in our land. .. . 

 "Sir, you may destroy this little institution; it is weak; it is in your hands! I know it is one of the lesser lights in the literary horizon of our country. You may put it out. But if you do so you must carry through your work! You must extinguish, one after another, all those greater lights of science which for more than a century have thrown their radiance over our land. It is, sir, as I have said, a small college. And yet there are those who love it. "

Here his feelings mastered him; his eyes filled with tears, his lipsquivered, his voice was choked. In broken words of tenderness he spoke ofhis attachment to the college, and his tones seemed filled with thememories of home and boyhood; of early affections and youthful privationsand struggles. 

 "The court room, " says Mr. Goodrich, to whom we owe this description, "during these two or three minutes presented an extraordinary spectacle. Chief Justice Marshall, with his tall and gaunt figure bent over as if to catch the slightest whisper, the deep furrows of his cheek expanded with emotion and his eyes suffused with tears; Mr. Justice Washington, at his side, with his small and emaciated frame, and countenance more like marble than I ever saw on any other human being, --leaning forward with an eager, troubled look; and the remainder of the court at the two extremities, pressing, as it were, to a single point, while the audience below were wrapping themselves round in closer folds beneath the bench, to catch each look and every movement of the speaker's face. .. . 

 "Mr. Webster had now recovered his composure, and, fixing his keen eye on the Chief Justice, said in that deep tone with which he sometimes thrilled the heart of an audience:--

 "'Sir, I know not how others may feel' (glancing at the opponents of the college before him), 'but for myself, when I see my Alma Mater surrounded, like Caesar in the senate-house, by those who are reiterating stab after stab, I would not, for this right hand, have her turn to me, and say, _Et tu quoque, mi fili! And thou too, my son!_'"

This outbreak of feeling was perfectly genuine. Apart from his personalrelations to the college, he had the true oratorical temperament, and noman can be an orator in the highest sense unless he feels intensely, forthe moment at least, the truth and force of every word he utters. To moveothers deeply he must be deeply moved himself. Yet at the same time Mr. Webster's peroration, and, indeed, his whole speech, was a model ofconsummate art. Great lawyer as he undoubtedly was, he felt on thisoccasion that he could not rely on legal argument and pure reason alone. Without appearing to go beyond the line of propriety, without indulging ina declamation unsuited to the place, he had to step outside of legal pointsand in a freer air, where he could use his keenest and strongest weapons, appeal to the court not as lawyers but as men subject to passion, emotion, and prejudice. This he did boldly, delicately, successfully, and thus hewon his case. 

The replies of the opposing counsel were poor enough after such a speech. Holmes's declamation sounded rather cheap, and Mr. Wirt, thrown off hisbalance by Mr. Webster's exposure of his ignorance, did but slight justiceto himself or his cause. March 12th the arguments were closed, and the nextday, after a conference, the Chief Justice announced that the court couldagree on nothing and that the cause must be continued for a year, until thenext term. The fact probably was that Marshall found the judges five to twoagainst the college, and that the task of bringing them into line was not alight one. 

In this undertaking, however, he was powerfully aided by the counsel andall the friends of the college. The old board of trustees had already paidmuch attention to public opinion. The press was largely Federalist, and, under the pressure of what was made a party question, they had espousedwarmly the cause of the college. Letters and essays had appeared, andpamphlets had been circulated, together with the arguments of the counselat Exeter. This work was pushed with increased eagerness after the argumentat Washington, and the object now was to create about the three doubtfuljudges an atmosphere of public opinion which should imperceptibly bringthem over to the college. Johnson, Livingston, and Story were all men whowould have started at the barest suspicion of outside influence even in themost legitimate form of argument, which was all that was ever thought of orattempted. This made the task of the trustees very delicate and difficultin developing a public sentiment which should sway the judges without theirbeing aware of it. The printed arguments of Mason, Smith, and Webster werecarefully sent to certain of the judges, but not to all. All documents of asimilar character found their way to the same quarters. The leadingFederalists were aroused everywhere, so that the judges might be made tofeel their opinion. With Story, as a New England man, a Democrat bycircumstances, a Federalist by nature, there was but little difficulty. Athorough review of the case, joined with Mr. Webster's argument, caused himsoon to change his first impression. To reach Livingston and Johnson wasnot so easy, for they were out of New England, and it was necessary to go along way round to get at them. The great legal upholder of Federalism inNew York was Chancellor Kent. His first impression, like that of Story, wasdecidedly against the college, but after much effort on the part of thetrustees and their able allies, Kent was converted, partly through hisreason, partly through his Federalism, and then his powers of persuasionand his great influence on opinion came to bear very directly onLivingston, more remotely on Johnson. The whole business was managed like aquiet, decorous political campaign. The press and the party were everywhereactively interested. At first, and in the early summer of 1818, before Kentwas converted, matters looked badly for the trustees. Mr. Webster knew thecomplexion of the court, and hoped little from the point raised in Trusteesvs. Woodward. Still, no one despaired, and the work was kept up until, inSeptember, President Brown wrote to Mr. Webster in reference to theargument:--

 "It has already been, or shortly will be, read by all the _commanding_ men of New England and New York; and so far as it has gone it has united them all, without a single exception within my knowledge, in one broad and impenetrable phalanx for our defence and support. New England and New York _are gained_. Will not this be sufficient for our present purposes? If not, I should recommend reprinting. And on this point you are the best judge. I prevailingly think, however, that the current of opinion from this part of the country is setting so strongly towards the South that we may safely trust to its force alone to accomplish whatever is necessary. "

The worthy clergyman writes of public opinion as if the object was to electa President. All this effort, however, was well applied, as was found whenthe court came together at the next term. In the interval the State hadbecome sensible of the defects of their counsel, and had retained Mr. Pinkney, who stood at that time at the head of the bar of the UnitedStates. He had all the qualifications of a great lawyer, except perhapsthat of robustness. He was keen, strong, and learned; diligent inpreparation, he was ready and fluent in action, a good debater, and masterof a high order of eloquence. He was a most formidable adversary, and onewhom Mr. Webster, then just at the outset of his career, had probably nodesire to meet in such a doubtful case as this. [1] Even here, however, misfortune seemed to pursue the State, for Mr. Pinkney was on bad termswith Mr. Wirt, and acted alone. He did all that was possible; preparedhimself elaborately in the law and history of the case, and then went intocourt ready to make the wisest possible move by asking for a re-argument. Marshall, however, was also quite prepared. Turning his "blind ear, " assome one said, to Pinkney, he announced, as soon as he took his seat, thatthe judges had come to a conclusion during the vacation. He then read oneof his great opinions, in which he held that the college charter was acontract within the meaning of the Constitution, and that the acts of theNew Hampshire Legislature impaired this contract, and were therefore void. To this decision four judges assented in silence, although Story andWashington subsequently wrote out opinions. Judge Todd was absent, throughillness, and Judge Duvall dissented. The immediate effect of the decisionwas to leave the college in the hands of the victorious Federalists. In theprecedent which it established, however, it had much deeper and morefar-reaching results. It brought within the scope of the Constitution ofthe United States every charter granted by a State, limited the action ofthe States in a most important attribute of sovereignty, and extended thejurisdiction of the highest federal court more than any other judgment everrendered by them. From the day when it was announced to the present time, the doctrine of Marshall in the Dartmouth College case has continued toexert an enormous influence, and has been constantly sustained and attackedin litigation of the greatest importance. 

[Footnote 1: Mr. Peter Harvey, in his _Reminiscences_ (p. 122), has ananecdote in regard to Webster and Pinkney, which places the former in thelight of a common and odious bully, an attitude as alien to Mr. Webster'scharacter as can well be conceived. The story is undoubtedly either whollyfictitious or so grossly exaggerated as to be practically false. On thepage preceding the account of this incident, Mr. Harvey makes Webster saythat he never received a challenge from Randolph, whereas in Webster's ownletter, published by Mr. Curtis, there is express reference to a note ofchallenge received from Randolph. This is a fair example of these_Reminiscences_. A more untrustworthy book it would be impossible toimagine. There is not a statement in it which can be safely accepted, unless supported by other evidence. It puts its subject throughout in themost unpleasant light, and nothing has ever been written about Webster sowell calculated to injure and belittle him as these feeble and distortedrecollections of his loving and devoted Boswell. It is the reflection of agreat man upon the mirror of a very small mind and weak memory. ]

The defendant Woodward having died, Mr. Webster moved that the judgment beentered _nunc pro tunc_. Pinkney and Wirt objected on the ground that theother causes on the docket contained additional facts, and that no finaljudgment should be entered until these causes had been heard. The court, however, granted Mr. Webster's motion. Mr. Pinkney then tried to availhimself of the stipulation in regard to the special verdict, that any newand material facts might be added or any facts expunged. Mr. Websterperemptorily declined to permit any change, obtained judgment againstWoodward, and obliged Mr. Pinkney to consent that the other causes shouldbe remanded, without instructions, to the Circuit Court, where they wereheard by Judge Story, who rendered a decree _nisi_ for the college. Thisclosed the case, and such were the last displays of Mr. Webster's dexterousand vigorous management of the famous "college causes. "

The popular opinion of this case seems to be that Mr. Webster, with the aidof Mr. Mason and Judge Smith, developed a great constitutional argument, which he forced upon the acceptance of the court by the power of his closeand logical reasoning, and thus established an interpretation of theConstitution of vast moment. The truth is, that the suggestion of theconstitutional point, not a very remarkable idea in itself, originated, ashas been said, with a layman, was regarded by Mr. Webster as a forlornhope, and was very briefly discussed by him before the Supreme Court. Heknew, of course, that if the case were to be decided against Woodward, itcould only be on the constitutional point, but he evidently thought thatthe court would not take the view of it which was favorable to the college. The Dartmouth College case was unquestionably one of Mr. Webster's greatachievements at the bar, but it has been rightly praised on mistakengrounds. Mr. Webster made a very fine presentation of the arguments mainlyprepared by Mason and Smith. He transcended the usual legal limits with aburst of eloquent appeal which stands high among the famous passages of hisoratory. In what may be called the strategy of the case he showed the bestgeneralship and the most skilful management. He also proved himself to bepossessed of great tact and to be versed in the knowledge of men, qualitiesnot usually attributed to him because their exercise involved an amount ofcare and painstaking foreign to his indolent and royal temperament, whichalmost always relied on weight and force for victory. 

Mr. Webster no doubt improved in details, and made better arguments at thebar than he did upon this occasion, but the Dartmouth College case, on thewhole, shows his legal talents so nearly at their best, and in such unusualvariety, that it is a fit point at which to pause in order to consider someof his other great legal arguments and his position and abilities as alawyer. For this purpose it is quite sufficient to confine ourselves to thecases mentioned by Mr. Curtis, and to the legal arguments preserved in thecollection of Mr. Webster's speeches. 

Five years after the Dartmouth College decision, Mr. Webster made hisfamous argument in the case of Gibbons vs. Ogden. The case was calledsuddenly, and Mr. Webster prepared his argument in a single night ofintense labor. The facts were all before him, but he showed a readiness inarrangement only equalled by its force. The question was whether the Stateof New York had a right under the Constitution to grant a monopoly of steamnavigation in its waters to Fulton and Livingston. Mr. Webster contendedthat the acts making such a grant were unconstitutional, because the powerof Congress to regulate commerce was, within certain limitations, exclusive. He won his cause, and the decision, from its importance, probably enhanced the contemporary estimate of his effort. The argument wasbadly reported, but it shows all its author's strongest qualities of closereasoning and effective statement. The point in issue was neither difficultnor obscure, and afforded no opportunity for a display of learning. It waspurely a matter of constitutional interpretation, and could be discussedchiefly in a historical manner and from the standpoint of public interests. This was particularly fitted to Mr. Webster's cast of mind, and he did hissubject full justice. It was pure argument on general principles. Mr. Webster does not reach that point of intense clearness and condensationwhich characterized Marshall and Hamilton, in whose writings we arefascinated by the beauty of the intellectual display, and are held fast byeach succeeding line, which always comes charged with fresh meaning. Nevertheless, Mr. Webster touches a very high point in this most difficultform of argument, and the impressiveness of his manner and voice carriedall that he said to its mark with a direct force in which he stoodunrivalled. 

In Ogden v. Saunders, heard in 1827, Mr. Webster argued that the clauseprohibiting state laws impairing the obligation of contracts covered futureas well as past contracts. He defended his position with astonishingability, but the court very correctly decided against him. The samequalities which appear in these cases are shown in the others of a likenature, which were conspicuous among the multitude with which he wasintrusted. We find them also in cases involving purely legal questions, such as the Bank of the United States v. Primrose, and The ProvidenceRailroad Co. V. The City of Boston, accompanied always with that readycommand of learning which an extraordinary memory made easy. There seemedto be no diminution of Mr. Webster's great powers in this field as headvanced in years. In the Rhode Island case and in the Passenger Tax cases, argued when he was sixty-six years old, he rose to the same high plane ofclear, impressive, effective reasoning as when he defended his Alma Mater. 

Two causes, however, demand more than a passing mention, --the Girard willcase and the Rhode Island case. The former involved no constitutionalpoints. The suit was brought to break the will of Stephen Girard, and thequestion was whether the bequest to found a college could be construed tobe a charitable devise. On this question Mr. Webster had a weak case inpoint of law, but he readily detected a method by which he could go boldlyoutside the law, as he had done to a certain degree in the DartmouthCollege case, and substitute for argument an eloquent and impassionedappeal to emotion and prejudice. Girard was a free-thinker, and he providedin his will that no priest or minister of any denomination should beadmitted to his college. Assuming that this excluded all religiousteaching, Mr. Webster then laid down the proposition that no bequest orgift could be charitable which excluded Christian teaching. In other words, he contended that there was no charity except Christian charity, which, thepoet assures us, is so rare. At this day such a theory would hardly begravely propounded by any one. But Mr. Webster, on the ground that Girard'sbequest was derogatory to Christianity, pronounced a very fine discoursedefending and eulogizing, with much eloquence, the Christian religion. Thespeech produced a great effect. One is inclined to think that it was thecause of the court's evading the question raised by Mr. Webster, andsustaining the will, a result they were bound to reach in any event, onother grounds. The speech certainly produced a great sensation, and wasmuch admired, especially by the clergy, who caused it to be printed andwidely distributed. It did not impress lawyers quite so favorably, and wefind Judge Story writing to Chancellor Kent that "Webster did his best forthe other side, but it seems to me altogether an address to the prejudicesof the clergy. " The subject, in certain ways, had a deep attraction for Mr. Webster. His imagination was excited by the splendid history of the Church, and his conservatism was deeply stirred by a system which, whether in theguise of the Romish hierarchy, as the Church of England, or in the form ofpowerful dissenting sects, was, as a whole, imposing by its age, itsinfluence, and its moral grandeur. Moreover, it was one of the greatestablished bulwarks of well-ordered and civilized society. All thisappealed strongly to Mr. Webster, and he made the most of his opportunityand of his shrewdly-chosen ground. Yet the speech on the Girard will is notone of his best efforts. It has not the subdued but intense fire whichglowed so splendidly in his great speeches in the Senate. It lacked thestately pathos which came always when Mr. Webster was deeply moved. It wasdelivered in 1844, and was slightly tinged with the pompousness whichmanifested itself in his late years, and especially on religious topics. Noman has a right to question the religious sincerity of another, unless uponevidence so full and clear that, in such cases, it is rarely to be found. There is certainly no cause for doubt in Mr. Webster's case. He was bothsincere and honest in religion, and had a real and submissive faith. But heaccepted his religion as one of the great facts and proprieties of life. Hedid not reach his religious convictions after much burning questioning andmany bitter experiences. In this he did not differ from most men of thisage, and it only amounts to saying that Mr. Webster did not have a deeplyreligious temperament. He did not have the ardent proselyting spirit whichis the surest indication of a profoundly religious nature; the spirit ofthe Saracen Emir crying, "Forward! Paradise is under the shadow of ourswords. " When, therefore, he turned his noble powers to a defence ofreligion, he did not speak with that impassioned fervor which, coming fromthe depths of a man's heart, savors of inspiration and seems essential tothe highest religious eloquence. He believed thoroughly every word heuttered, but he did not feel it, and in things spiritual the heart must beenlisted as well as the head. It was wittily said of a well-knownanti-slavery leader, that had he lived in the Middle Ages he would havegone to the stake for a principle, under a misapprehension as to the facts. Mr. Webster not only could never have misapprehended facts, but, if he hadflourished in the Middle Ages he would have been a stanch and honestsupporter of the strongest government and of the dominant church. Perhapsthis defines his religious character as well as anything, and explains whythe argument in the Girard will case, fine as it was, did not reach theelevation and force which he so often displayed on other themes. 

The Rhode Island case grew out of the troubles known at that period asDorr's rebellion. It involved a discussion not only of the constitutionalprovisions for suppressing insurrections and securing to every State arepublican form of government, but also of the general history and theoryof the American governments, both state and national. There was thusoffered to Mr. Webster that full scope and large field in which hedelighted, and which were always peculiarly favorable to his talents. Hisargument was purely constitutional, and although not so closely reasoned, perhaps, as some of his earlier efforts, is, on the whole, as fine aspecimen as we have of his intellectual power as a constitutional lawyer atthe bar of the highest national tribunal. Mr. Webster did not oftentranscend the proper limits of purely legal discussion in the courts, andyet even when the question was wholly legal, the court-room would becrowded by ladies as well as gentlemen, to hear him speak. It was so at thehearing of the Girard suit; and during the strictly legal arguments in theCharles River Bridge case, the court-room, Judge Story says, was filledwith a brilliant audience, including many ladies, and he adds that"Webster's closing reply was in his best manner, but with a little too much_fierté_ here and there. " The ability to attract such audiences gives anidea of the impressiveness of his manner and of the beauty of his voice anddelivery better than anything else, for these qualities alone could havedrawn the general public and held their attention to the cold and drydiscussion of laws and constitutions. 

There is a little anecdote told by Mr. Curtis in connection with this RhodeIsland case, which illustrates very well two striking qualities in Mr. Webster as a lawyer. The counsel in the court below had been assisted by aclever young lawyer named Bosworth, who had elaborated a point which hethought very important, but which his seniors rejected. Mr. Bosworth wassent to Washington to instruct Mr. Webster as to the cause, and, after hehad gone through the case, Mr. Webster asked if that was all. Mr. Bosworthmodestly replied that there was another view of his own which his seniorshad rejected, and then stated it briefly. When he concluded, Mr. Websterstarted up and exclaimed, "Mr. Bosworth, by the blood of all the Bosworthswho fell on Bosworth field, that is _the_ point of the case. Let it beincluded in the brief by all means. " This is highly characteristic of oneof Mr. Webster's strongest attributes. He always saw with an unerringglance "_the_ point" of a case or a debate. A great surgeon will detect theprecise spot where the knife should enter when disease hides it from othereyes, and often with apparent carelessness will make the necessary incisionat the exact place when a deflection of a hair's breadth or a tremor of thehand would bring death to the patient. Mr. Webster had the sameintellectual dexterity, the mingled result of nature and art. As the tigeris said to have a sure instinct for the throat of his victim, so Mr. Webster always seized on the vital point of a question. Other men woulddebate and argue for days, perhaps, and then Mr. Webster would take up thematter, and grasp at once the central and essential element which had beenthere all along, pushed hither and thither, but which had escaped all eyesbut his own. He had preëminently

 "The calm eye that seeks 'Midst all the huddling silver little worth The one thin piece that comes, pure gold. "

The anecdote further illustrates the use which Mr. Webster made of theideas of other people. He did not say to Mr. Bosworth, here is the truepoint of the case, but he saw that something was wanting, and asked theyoung lawyer what it was. The moment the proposition was stated herecognized its value and importance at a glance. He might and probablywould have discovered it for himself, but his instinct was to get it fromsome one else. 

It is one of the familiar attributes of great intellectual power to be ableto select subordinates wisely; to use other people and other people's laborand thought to the best advantage, and to have as much as possible done forone by others. This power of assimilation Mr. Webster had to a markeddegree. There is no depreciation in saying that he took much from others, for it is a capacity characteristic of the strongest minds, and so long asthe debt is acknowledged, such a faculty is a subject for praise, notcriticism. But when the recipient becomes unwilling to admit the obligationwhich is no detraction to himself, and without which the giver is poorindeed, the case is altered. In his earliest days Mr. Webster used to drawon one Parker Noyes, a mousing, learned New Hampshire lawyer, and freelyacknowledged the debt. In the Dartmouth College case, as has been seen, heover and over again gave simply and generously all the credit for thelearning and the points of the brief to Mason and Smith, and yet the gloryof the case has rested with Mr. Webster and always will. He gained by hisfrank honesty and did not lose a whit. But in his latter days, when hissense of justice had grown somewhat blunted and his nature was perverted bythe unmeasured adulation of the little immediate circle which then hungabout him, he ceased to admit his obligations as in his earlier and betteryears. From no one did Mr. Webster receive so much hearty and generousadvice and assistance as from Judge Story, whose calm judgment and wealthof learning were always at his disposal. They were given not only inquestions of law, but in regard to the Crimes Act, the Judiciary Act, andthe Ashburton treaty. After Judge Story's death, Mr. Webster not onlydeclined to allow the publication by the judge's son and biographer ofStory's letters to himself, but he refused to permit even the publicationof extracts from his own letters, intended merely to show the nature of theservices rendered to him by Story. A cordial assent would have enhanced thereputation of both. The refusal is a blot on the intellectual greatness ofthe one and a source of bitterness to the descendants and admirers of theother. It is to be regretted that the extraordinary ability which Mr. Webster always showed in grasping and assimilating masses of theories andfacts, and in drawing from them what was best, should ever have beensullied by a want of gratitude which, properly and freely rendered, wouldhave made the lustre of his own fame shine still more brightly. 

A close study of Mr. Webster's legal career, in the light of contemporaryreputation and of the best examples of his work, leads to certain quiteobvious conclusions. He had not a strongly original or creative legal mind. This was chiefly due to nature, but in some measure to a dislike to theslow processes of investigation and inquiry which were always distastefulto him, although he was entirely capable of intense and protractedexertion. He cannot, therefore, be ranked with the illustrious few, amongwhom we count Mansfield and Marshall as the most brilliant examples, whonot only declared what the law was, but who made it. Mr. Webster's powerswere not of this class, but, except in these highest and rarest qualities, he stands in the front rank of the lawyers of his country and his age. Without extraordinary profundity of thought or depth of learning, he had awide, sure, and ready knowledge both of principles and cases. Add to thisquick apprehension, unerring sagacity for vital and essential points, aperfect sense of proportion, an almost unequalled power of statement, backed by reasoning at once close and lucid, and we may fairly say that Mr. Webster, who possessed all these qualities, need fear comparison with butvery few among the great lawyers of that period either at home or abroad. 

CHAPTER IV. 

THE MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION AND THE PLYMOUTH ORATION. 

The conduct of the Dartmouth College case, and its result, at once raisedMr. Webster to a position at the bar second only to that held by Mr. Pinkney. He was now constantly occupied by most important and lucrativeengagements, but in 1820 he was called upon to take a leading part in agreat public work which demanded the exertion of all his talents asstatesman, lawyer, and debater. The lapse of time and the setting off ofthe Maine district as a State had made a convention necessary, in order torevise the Constitution of Massachusetts. This involved the direct resortto the people, the source of all power, which is only required to effect achange in the fundamental law of the State. On these rare occasions it hasbeen the honored custom in Massachusetts to lay aside all thequalifications attaching to ordinary legislatures and to choose the bestmen, without regard to party, public office, or domicile, for theperformance of this important work. No better or abler body could have beenassembled for this purpose than that which met in convention at Boston inNovember, 1820. Among these distinguished men were John Adams, then in hiseighty-fifth year, and one of the framers of the original Constitution of1780, Chief Justice Parker, of the Supreme Bench, the Federal judges, andmany of the leaders at the bar and in business. The two most conspicuousmen in the convention, however, were Joseph Story and Daniel Webster, whobore the burden in every discussion; and there were three subjects, uponwhich Mr. Webster spoke at length, that deserve more than a passingallusion. 

Questions of party have, as a rule, found but little place in theconstitutional assemblies of Massachusetts. This was peculiarly the case in1820, when the old political divisions were dying out, and new ones had notyet been formed. At the same time widely opposite views found expression inthe convention. The movement toward thorough and complete democracy wasgathering headway, and directing its force against many of the old colonialtraditions and habits of government embodied in the existing Constitution. That portion of the delegates which favored certain radical changes wasconfronted and stoutly opposed by those who, on the whole, inclined to makeas few alterations as possible, and desired to keep things about as theywere. Mr. Webster, as was natural, was the leader of the conservativeparty, and his course in this convention is an excellent illustration ofthis marked trait in his disposition and character. 

One of the important questions concerned the abolition of the profession ofChristian faith as a qualification for holding office. On this point theline of argument pursued by Mr. Webster is extremely characteristic. Although an unvarying conservative throughout his life, he was incapable ofbigotry, or of narrow and illiberal views. At the same time the process bywhich he reached his opinion in favor of removing the religious test showsmore clearly than even ultra-conservatism could, how free he was from anytouch of the reforming or innovating spirit. He did not urge that, ongeneral principles, religious tests were wrong, that they were relics ofthe past and in hopeless conflict with the fundamental doctrines ofAmerican liberty and democracy. On the contrary, he implied that areligious test was far from being of necessity an evil. He laid down thesound doctrine that qualifications for office were purely matters ofexpediency, and then argued that it was wise to remove the religious testbecause, while its principle would be practically enforced by a Christiancommunity, it was offensive to some persons to have it engrafted on theConstitution. The speech in which he set forth these views was an able andconvincing one, entirely worthy of its author, and the removal of the testwas carried by a large majority. It is an interesting example of thecombination of steady conservatism and breadth of view which Mr. Websteralways displayed. But it also brings into strong relief his aversion toradical general principles as grounds of action, and his inborn hostilityto far-reaching change. 

His two other important speeches in this convention have been preserved inhis works, and are purely and wholly conservative in tone and spirit. Thefirst related to the basis of representation in the Senate, whose memberswere then apportioned according to the amount of taxable property in thedistricts. This system, Mr. Webster thought, should be retained, and hisspeech was a most masterly discussion of the whole system of government bytwo Houses. He urged the necessity of a basis of representation for theupper House different from that of the lower, in order to make the formerfully serve its purpose of a check and balance to the popular branch. Thisimportant point he handled in the most skilful manner, and there is noescape from his conclusion that a difference of origin in the twolegislative branches of the government is essential to the full and perfectoperation of the system. This difference of origin, he argued, could beobtained only by the introduction of property as a factor in the basis ofrepresentation. The weight of his speech was directed to defending theprinciple of a suitable representation of property, which was a subjectrequiring very adroit treatment. The doctrine is one which probably wouldnot be tolerated now in any part of this country, and even in 1820, inMassachusetts, it was a delicate matter to advocate it, for it was hostileto the general sentiment of the people. Having established his positionthat it was all important to make the upper branch a strong and effectivecheck, he said that the point in issue was not whether property offered thebest method of distinguishing between the two Houses, but whether it wasnot better than no distinction at all. This being answered affirmatively, the next question to be considered was whether property, not in the senseof personal possessions and personal power, but in a general sense, oughtnot to have its due influence in matters of government. He maintained thejustice of this proposition by showing that our constitutions rest largelyon the general equality of property, which, in turn, is due to our laws ofdistribution. This led him into a discussion of the principles of thedistribution of property. He pointed out the dangers arising in Englandfrom the growth of a few large estates, while on the other hand hepredicted that the rapid and minute subdivision of property in France wouldchange the character of the government, and, far from strengthening thecrown, as was then generally prophesied, would have a directly oppositeeffect, by creating a large and united body of small proprietors, who wouldsooner or later control the country. He illustrated, in this way, the valueand importance of a general equality of property, and of steadiness inlegislation affecting it. These were the reasons, he contended, for makingproperty the basis of the check and balance furnished to our system ofgovernment by an upper House. Moreover, all property being subject totaxation for the purpose of educating the children of both rich and poor, it deserved some representation for this valuable aid to government. It isimpossible, in a few lines, [1] to do justice to Mr. Webster's argument. Itexhibited a great deal of tact and ingenuity, especially in the distinctionso finely drawn between property as an element of personal power andproperty in a general sense, and so distributed as to be a bulwark ofliberty. The speech is, on this account, an interesting one, for Mr. Webster was rarely ingenious, and hardly ever got over difficulties byfine-spun distinctions. In this instance adroitness was very necessary, andhe did not hesitate to employ it. By his skilful treatment, by hisillustrations drawn from England and France, which show the accuracy andrange of his mental vision in matters of politics and public economy, bothat home and abroad, and with the powerful support of Judge Story, Mr. Webster carried his point. The element of property representation in theSenate was retained, but so wholly by the ability of its advocate, that itwas not long afterwards removed. 

[Footnote 1: My brief statement is merely a further condensation of theexcellent abstract of this speech made by Mr Curtis. ]

Mr. Webster's other important speech related to the judiciary. TheConstitution provided that the judges, who held office during goodbehavior, should be removable by the Governor on an address from theLegislature. This was considered to meet cases of incompetency or ofpersonal misconduct, which could not be reached by impeachment. Mr. Websterdesired to amend the clause so as to require a two thirds vote for thepassage of the address, and that reasons should be assigned, and a hearingassured to the judge who was the subject of the proceedings. These changeswere all directed to the further protection of the bench, and it was inthis connection that Mr. Webster made a most admirable and effective speechon the well-worn but noble theme of judicial independence. He failed tocarry conviction, however, and his amendments were all lost. The perilswhich he anticipated have never arisen, and the good sense of the people ofMassachusetts has prevented the slightest abuse of what Mr. Webster rightlyesteemed a dangerous power. 

Mr. Webster's continual and active exertion throughout the session of thisconvention brought him great applause and admiration, and showed his powersin a new light. Judge Story, with generous enthusiasm, wrote to Mr. Mason, after the convention adjourned:--

 "Our friend Webster has gained a noble reputation. He was before known as a lawyer; but he has now secured the title of an eminent and enlightened statesman. It was a glorious field for him, and he has had an ample harvest. The whole force of his great mind was brought out, and, in several speeches, he commanded universal admiration. He always led the van, and was most skilful and instantaneous in attack and retreat. He fought, as I have told him, in the 'imminent deadly breach;' and all I could do was to skirmish, in aid of him, upon some of the enemy's outposts. On the whole, I never was more proud of any display than his in my life, and I am much deceived if the well-earned popularity, so justly and so boldly acquired by him on this occasion, does not carry him, if he lives, to the presidency. "

While this convention, so memorable in the career of Mr. Webster and sofilled with the most absorbing labors, was in session, he achieved a stillwider renown in a very different field. On the 22d of December, 1820, hedelivered at Plymouth the oration which commemorated the two hundredthanniversary of the landing of the Pilgrims. The theme was a splendid one, both in the intrinsic interest of the event itself, in the character of thePilgrims, in the vast results which had grown from their humble beginnings, and in the principles of free government, which had spread from the cabinsof the exiles over the face of a continent, and had become the commonheritage of a great people. We are fortunate in having a description of theorator, written at the time by a careful observer and devoted friend, Mr. Ticknor, who says:--

 "_Friday Evening. _--I have run away from a great levee there is down-stairs, thronging in admiration round Mr. Webster, to tell you a little word about his oration. Yet I do not dare to trust myself about it, and I warn you beforehand that I have not the least confidence in my own opinion. His manner carried me away completely; not, I think, that I could have been so carried away if it had been a poor oration, for of that, I apprehend, there can be no fear. It _must_ have been a great, a very great performance, but whether it was so absolutely unrivalled as I imagined when I was under the immediate influence of his presence, of his tones, of his looks, I cannot be sure till I have read it, for it seems to me incredible. 

 "I was never so excited by public speaking before in my life. Three or four times I thought my temples would burst with the gush of blood; for, after all, you must know that I am aware it is no connected and compacted whole, but a collection of wonderful fragments of burning eloquence, to which his whole manner gave tenfold force. When I came out I was almost afraid to come near to him. It seemed to me as if he was like the mount that might not be touched and that burned with fire. I was beside myself, and am so still. "

 "_Saturday. _--Mr. Webster was in admirable spirits. On Thursday evening he was considerably agitated and oppressed, and yesterday morning he had not his natural look at all; but since his entire success he has been as gay and playful as a kitten. The party came in one after another, and the spirits of all were kindled brighter and brighter, and we fairly sat up till after two o'clock. I think, therefore, we may now safely boast the Plymouth expedition has gone off admirably. "

Mr. Ticknor was a man of learning and scholarship, just returned from aprolonged sojourn in Europe, where he had met and conversed with all themost distinguished men of the day, both in England and on the Continent. Hewas not, therefore, disposed by training or recent habits to indulge afacile enthusiasm, and such deep emotion as he experienced must have beendue to no ordinary cause. He was, in fact, profoundly moved because he hadbeen listening to one of the great masters of eloquence exhibiting, for thefirst time, his full powers in a branch of the art much more cultivated inAmerica by distinguished men of all professions than is the customelsewhere. The Plymouth oration belongs to what, for lack of a better name, we must call occasional oratory. This form of address, taking ananniversary, a great historical event or character, a celebration, oroccasion of any sort as a starting point, permits either a close adherenceto the original text or the widest latitude of treatment. The field is abroad and inviting one. That it promises an easy success is shown by theinnumerable productions of this kind which, for many years, have beenshowered upon the country. That the promise is fallacious is proved by thevery small number among the countless host of such addresses which survivethe moment of their utterance. The facility of saying something iscounterbalanced by the difficulty of saying anything worth hearing. Thetemptation to stray and to mistake platitude for originality is almostalways fatal. 

Mr. Webster was better fitted than any man who has ever lived in thiscountry for the perilous task of occasional oratory. The freedom ofmovement which renders most speeches of this class diluted and commonplacewas exactly what he needed. He required abundant intellectual room for aproper display of his powers, and he had the rare quality of being able torange over vast spaces of time and thought without becoming attenuated inwhat he said. Soaring easily, with a powerful sweep he returned again toearth without jar or shock. He had dignity and grandeur of thought, expression, and manner, and a great subject never became small by histreatment of it. He had, too, a fine historical imagination, and couldbreathe life and passion into the dead events of the past. 

Mr. Ticknor speaks of the Plymouth oration as impressing him as a series ofeloquent fragments. The impression was perfectly correct. Mr. Webstertouched on the historical event, on the character of the Pilgrims, on thegrowth and future of the country, on liberty and constitutional principles, on education, and on human slavery. This was entirely proper to such anaddress. The difficulty lay in doing it well, and Mr. Webster did it asperfectly as it ever has been done. The thoughts were fine, and wereexpressed in simple and beautiful words. The delivery was grand andimpressive, and the presentation of each successive theme glowed withsubdued fire. There was no straining after mere rhetorical effect, but anartistic treatment of a succession of great subjects in a general and yetvivid and picturesque fashion. The emotion produced by the Plymouth orationwas akin to that of listening to the strains of music issuing from afull-toned organ. Those who heard it did not seek to gratify their reasonor look for conviction to be brought to their understanding. It did notappeal to the logical faculties or to the passions, which are roused by thekeen contests of parliamentary debate. It was the divine gift of speech, the greatest instrument given to man, used with surpassing talent, and thejoy and pleasure which it brought were those which come from listening tothe song of a great singer, or looking upon the picture of a great artist. 

The Plymouth oration, which was at once printed and published, was receivedwith a universal burst of applause. It had more literary success thananything which had at that time appeared, except from the pen of WashingtonIrving. The public, without stopping to analyze their own feelings, or theoration itself, recognized at once that a new genius had come before them, a man endowed with the noble gift of eloquence, and capable by the exerciseof his talents of moving and inspiring great masses of his fellow-men. Mr. Webster was then of an age to feel fully the glow of a great success, bothat the moment and when the cooler and more critical approbation came. Hewas fresh and young, a strong man rejoicing to run the race. Mr. Ticknorsays, in speaking of the oration:--

 "The passage at the end, where, spreading his arms as if to embrace them, he welcomed future generations to the great inheritance which we have enjoyed, was spoken with the most attractive sweetness and that peculiar smile which in him was always so charming. The effect of the whole was very great. As soon as he got home to our lodgings, all the principal people then in Plymouth crowded about him. He was full of animation, and radiant with happiness. But there was something about him very grand and imposing at the same time. I never saw him at any time when he seemed to me to be more conscious of his own powers, or to have a more true and natural enjoyment from their possession. "

Amid all the applause and glory, there was one letter of congratulation andacknowledgment which must have given Mr. Webster more pleasure thananything else, It came from John Adams, who never did anything by halves. Whether he praised or condemned, he did it heartily and ardently, and suchan oration on New England went straight to the heart of the eager, warm-blooded old patriot. His commendation, too, was worth having, for hespoke as one having authority. John Adams had been one of the eloquent menand the most forcible debater of the first Congress. He had listened to thegreat orators of other lands. He had heard Pitt and Fox, Burke andSheridan, and had been present at the trial of Warren Hastings. Hisunstinted praise meant and still means a great deal, and it concludes withone of the finest and most graceful of compliments. The oration, he says, "is the effort of a great mind, richly stored with every species of information. If there be an American who can read it without tears, I am not that American. It enters more perfectly into the genuine spirit of New England than any production I ever read. The observations on the Greeks and Romans; on colonization in general; on the West India islands; on the past, present, and future of America, and on the slave-trade, are sagacious, profound, and affecting in a high degree. "

 "Mr. Burke is no longer entitled to the praise--the most consummate orator of modern times. "

 "What can I say of what regards myself? To my humble name, _Exegisti monumentum aere perennius_. "

Many persons consider the Plymouth oration to be the finest of all Mr. Webster's efforts in this field. It is certainly one of the very best ofhis productions, but he showed on the next great occasion a distinctimprovement, which he long maintained. Five years after the oration atPlymouth, he delivered the address on the laying of the corner-stone ofBunker Hill monument. The superiority to the first oration was not inessentials, but in details, the fruit of a ripening and expanding mind. AtBunker Hill, as at Plymouth, he displayed the massiveness of thought, thedignity and grandeur of expression, and the range of vision which are allso characteristic of his intellect and which were so much enhanced by hiswonderful physical attributes. But in the later oration there is a greaterfinish and smoothness. We appreciate the fact that the Plymouth oration isa succession of eloquent fragments; the same is true of the Bunker Hilladdress, but we no longer realize it. The continuity is, in appearance, unbroken, and the whole work is rounded and polished. The style, too, isnow perfected. It is at once plain, direct, massive, and vivid. Thesentences are generally short and always clear, but never monotonous. Thepreference for Anglo-Saxon words and the exclusion of Latin derivatives areextremely marked, and we find here in rare perfection that highestattribute of style, the union of simplicity, picturesqueness, and force. 

In the first Bunker Hill oration Mr. Webster touched his highest point inthe difficult task of commemorative oratory. In that field he not onlystands unrivalled, but no one has approached him. The innumerableproductions of this class by other men, many of a high degree ofexcellence, are forgotten, while those of Webster form part of theeducation of every American school-boy, are widely read, and have enteredinto the literature and thought of the country. The orations of Plymouthand Bunker Hill are grouped in Webster's works with a number of otherspeeches professedly of the same kind. But only a very few of these arestrictly occasional; the great majority are chiefly, if not wholly, political speeches, containing merely passages here and there in the samevein as his great commemorative addresses. Before finally leaving thesubject, however, it will be well to glance for a moment at the feworations which properly belong to the same class as the first two which wehave been considering. 

The Bunker Hill oration, after the lapse of only a year, was followed bythe celebrated eulogy upon Adams and Jefferson. This usually and withjustice is ranked in merit with its two immediate predecessors. As a wholeit is not, perhaps, quite so much admired, but it contains the famousimaginary speech of John Adams, which is the best known and most hackneyedpassage in any of these orations. The opening lines, "Sink or swim, live ordie, survive or perish, I give my hand and my heart to this vote, " sinceMr. Webster first pronounced them in Faneuil Hall, have risen even to thedignity of a familiar quotation. The passage, indeed, is perhaps the bestexample we have of the power of Mr. Webster's historical imagination. Hehad some fragmentary sentences, the character of the man, the nature of thedebate, and the circumstances of the time to build upon, and from thesematerials he constructed a speech which was absolutely startling in itslifelike force. The revolutionary Congress, on the verge of the tremendousstep which was to separate them from England, rises before us as we readthe burning words which the imagination of the speaker put into the mouthof John Adams. They are not only instinct with life, but with the life ofimpending revolution, and they glow with the warmth and strength of feelingso characteristic of their supposed author. It is well known that thegeneral belief at the time was that the passage was an extract from aspeech actually delivered by John Adams. Mr. Webster, as well as Mr. Adams's son and grandson, received numerous letters of inquiry on thispoint, and it is possible that many people still persist in this belief asto the origin of the passage. Such an effect was not produced by mereclever imitation, for there was nothing to imitate, but by the force of apowerful historic imagination and a strong artistic sense in itsmanagement. 

In 1828 Mr. Webster delivered an address before the Mechanics' Institute inBoston, on "Science in connection with the Mechanic Arts, " a subject whichwas outside of his usual lines of thought, and offered no especialattractions to him. This oration is graceful and strong, and possessessufficient and appropriate eloquence. It is chiefly interesting, however, from the reserve and self-control, dictated by a nice sense of fitness, which it exhibited. Omniscience was not Mr. Webster's foible. He never wasguilty of Lord Brougham's weakness of seeking to prove himself master ofuniversal knowledge. In delivering an address on science and invention, there was a strong temptation to an orator like Mr. Webster to substituteglittering rhetoric for real knowledge; but the address at the Mechanics'Institute is simply the speech of a very eloquent and a liberally educatedman upon a subject with which he had only the most general acquaintance. The other orations of this class were those on "The Character ofWashington, " the second Bunker Hill address, "The Landing at Plymouth, "delivered in New York at the dinner of the Pilgrim Society, the remarks onthe death of Judge Story and of Mr. Mason, and finally the speech on layingthe corner-stone for the addition to the Capitol, in 1851. These were allcomparatively brief speeches, with the exception of that at Bunker Hill, which, although very fine, was perceptibly inferior to his first effortwhen the corner-stone of the monument was laid. The address on thecharacter of Washington, to an American the most dangerous of great andwell-worn topics, is of a high order of eloquence. The theme appealed toMr. Webster strongly and brought out his best powers, which were peculiarlyfitted to do justice to the noble, massive, and dignified character of thesubject. The last of these addresses, that on the addition to the Capitol, was in a prophetic vein, and, while it shows but little diminution ofstrength, has a sadness even in its splendid anticipations of the future, which makes it one of the most impressive of its class. All those whichhave been mentioned, however, show the hand of the master and are worthy tobe preserved in the volumes which contain the noble series that began inthe early flush of genius with the brilliant oration in the Plymouthchurch, and closed with the words uttered at Washington, under the shadowof the Capitol, when the light of life was fading and the end of all thingswas at hand. 

CHAPTER V. 

RETURN TO CONGRESS. 

The thorough knowledge of the principles of government and legislation, thepractical statesmanship, and the capacity for debate shown in the Stateconvention, combined with the splendid oration at Plymouth to make Mr. Webster the most conspicuous man in New England, with the single exceptionof John Quincy Adams. There was, therefore, a strong and general desirethat he should return to public life. He accepted with some reluctance thenomination to Congress from the Boston district in 1822, and in December, 1823, took his seat. 

The six years which had elapsed since Mr. Webster left Washington had beena period of political quiet. The old parties had ceased to represent anydistinctive principles, and the Federalists scarcely existed as anorganization. Mr. Webster, during this interval, had remained almost whollyquiescent in regard to public affairs. He had urged the visit of Mr. Monroeto the North, which had done so much to hasten the inevitable dissolutionof parties. He had received Mr. Calhoun when that gentleman visitedBoston, and their friendship and apparent intimacy were such that the SouthCarolinian was thought to be his host's candidate for the presidency. Except for this and the part which he took in the Boston opposition to theMissouri compromise and to the tariff, matters to be noticed in connectionwith later events, Mr. Webster had held aloof from political conflict. 

When he returned to Washington in 1823, the situation was much altered fromthat which he had left in 1817. In reality there were no parties, or onlyone; but the all-powerful Republicans who had adopted, under the pressureof foreign war, most of the Federalist principles so obnoxious to Jeffersonand his school, were split up into as many factions as there werecandidates for the presidency. It was a period of transition in whichpersonal politics had taken the place of those founded on opposingprinciples, and this "era of good feeling" was marked by the intensebitterness of the conflicts produced by these personal rivalries. Inaddition to the factions which were battling for the control of theRepublican party and for the great prize of the presidency, there was stillanother faction, composed of the old Federalists, who, although withoutorganization, still held to their name and their prejudices, and clungtogether more as a matter of habit than with any practical object. Mr. Webster had been one of the Federalist leaders in the old days, and whenhe returned to public life with all the distinction which he had won inother fields, he was at once recognized as the chief and head of all thatnow remained of the great party of Washington and Hamilton. No Federalistcould hope to be President, and for this very reason Federalist support waseagerly sought by all Republican candidates for the presidency. The favorof Mr. Webster as the head of an independent and necessarily disinterestedfaction was, of course, strongly desired in many quarters. His politicalposition and his high reputation as a lawyer, orator, and statesman madehim, therefore, a character of the first importance in Washington, a factto which Mr. Clay at once gave public recognition by placing his futurerival at the head of the Judiciary Committee of the House. 

The six years of congressional life which now ensued were among the mostuseful if not the most brilliant in Mr. Webster's whole public career. Hewas free from the annoyance of opposition at home, and was twice returnedby a practically unanimous popular vote. He held a commanding andinfluential and at the same time a thoroughly independent position inWashington, where he was regarded as the first man on the floor of theHouse in point of ability and reputation. He was not only able to show hisgreat capacity for practical legislation, but he was at liberty to advancehis own views on public questions in his own way, unburdened by the outsideinfluences of party and of association which had affected him so much inhis previous term of service and were soon to reassert their sway in allhis subsequent career. 

His return to Congress was at once signalized by a great speech, which, although of no practical or immediate moment, deserves careful attentionfrom the light which it throws on the workings of his mind and thedevelopment of his opinions in regard to his country. The House had been insession but a few days when Mr. Webster offered a resolution in favor ofproviding by law for the expenses incident to the appointment of acommissioner to Greece, should the President deem such an appointmentexpedient. The Greeks were then in the throes of revolution, and thesympathy for the heirs of so much glory in their struggle for freedom wasstrong among the American people. When Mr. Webster rose on January 19, 1824, to move the adoption of the resolution which he had laid upon thetable of the House, the chamber was crowded and the galleries were filledby a large and fashionable audience attracted by the reputation of theorator and the interest felt in his subject. His hearers were disappointedif they expected a great rhetorical display, for which the nature of thesubject and the classic memories clustering about it offered such strongtemptations. Mr. Webster did not rise for that purpose, nor to makecapital by an appeal to a temporary popular interest. His speech was for awholly different purpose. It was the first expression of that grandconception of the American Union which had vaguely excited his youthfulenthusiasm. This conception had now come to be part of his intellectualbeing, and then and always stirred his imagination and his affections totheir inmost depths. It embodied the principle from which he never swerved, and led to all that he represents and to all that his influence means inour history. 

As the first expression of his conception of the destiny of the UnitedStates as a great and united nation, Mr. Webster was, naturally, "more fondof this child" than of any other of his intellectual family. The speechitself was a noble one, but it was an eloquent essay rather than a greatexample of the oratory of debate. This description can in no other case beapplied to Mr. Webster's parliamentary efforts, but in this instance it iscorrect, because the occasion justified such a form. Mr. Webster's purposewas to show that, though the true policy of the United States absolutelydebarred them from taking any part in the affairs of Europe, yet they hadan important duty to perform in exercising their proper influence on thepublic opinion of the world. Europe was then struggling with the monstrousprinciples of the "Holy Alliance. " Those principles Mr. Webster reviewedhistorically. He showed their pernicious tendency, their hostility to allmodern theories of government, and their especial opposition to theprinciples of American liberty. If the doctrines of the Congress of Laybachwere right and could be made to prevail, then those of America were wrongand the systems of popular government adopted in the United States weredoomed. Against such infamous principles it behooved the people of theUnited States to raise their voice. Mr. Webster sketched the history ofGreece, and made a fine appeal to Americans to give an expression of theirsympathy to a people struggling for freedom. He proclaimed, so that all menmight hear, the true duty of the United States toward the oppressed of anyland, and the responsibility which they held to exert their influence uponthe opinions of mankind. The national destiny of his country in regard toother nations was his theme; to give to the glittering declaration ofCanning, that he would "call in the new world to redress the balance of theold, " a deep and real significance was his object. 

The speech touched Mr. Clay to the quick. He supported Mr. Webster'sresolution with all the ardor of his generous nature, and supplemented itby another against the interference of Spain in South America. A stormydebate followed, vivified by the flings and taunts of John Randolph, butthe unwillingness to take action was so great that Mr. Webster did notpress his resolution to a vote. He had at the outset looked for a practicalresult from his resolution, and had desired the appointment of Mr. Everettas commissioner, a plan in which he had been encouraged by Mr. Calhoun, whohad given him to understand that the Executive regarded the Greek missionwith favor. Before he delivered his speech he became aware that Calhoun hadmisled him, that Mr. Adams, the Secretary of State, considered Everett toomuch of a partisan, and that the administration was wholly averse to anyaction in the premises. This destroyed all hope of a practical result, andmade an adverse vote certain. The only course was to avoid a decision andtrust to what he said for an effect on public opinion. The real purpose ofthe speech, however, was achieved. Mr. Webster had exposed and denouncedthe Holy Alliance as hostile to the liberties of mankind, and had declaredthe unalterable enmity of the United States to its reactionary doctrines. The speech was widely read, not only wherever English was spoken, but itwas translated into all the languages of Europe, and was circulatedthroughout South America. It increased Mr. Webster's fame at home and laidthe foundation of his reputation abroad. Above all, it stamped him as astatesman of a broad and national cast of mind. 

He now settled down to hard and continuous labor at the routine businessof the House, and it was not until the end of March that he had occasion tomake another elaborate and important speech. At that time Mr. Clay took upthe bill for laying certain protective duties and advocated it strenuouslyas part of a general and steady policy which he then christened with thename of "the American system. " Against this bill, known as the tariff of1824, Mr. Webster made, as Mr. Adams wrote in his diary at the time, "anable and powerful speech, " which can be more properly considered when wecome to his change of position on this question a few years later. 

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the affairs of the national courtswere his particular care. Western expansion demanded an increased number ofjudges for the circuits, but, unfortunately, decisions in certain recentcases had offended the sensibilities of Virginia and Kentucky, and therewas a renewal of the old Jeffersonian efforts to limit the authority of theSupreme Court. Instead of being able to improve, he was obliged to defendthe court, and this he did successfully, defeating all attempts to curtailits power by alterations of the act of 1789. These duties and that ofinvestigating the charges brought by Ninian Edwards against Mr. Crawford, the Secretary of the Treasury, made the session an unusually laborious one, and detained Mr. Webster in Washington until midsummer. 

The short session of the next winter was of course marked by theexcitement attendant upon the settlement of the presidential election whichresulted in the choice of Mr. John Quincy Adams by the House ofRepresentatives. The intense agitation in political circles did not, however, prevent Mr. Webster from delivering one very important speech, norfrom carrying through successfully one of the most important andpractically useful measures of his legislative career. The speech wasdelivered in the debate on the bill for continuing the national Cumberlandroad. Mr. Webster had already, many years before, defined his position onthe constitutional question involved in internal improvements. He now, inresponse to Mr. McDuffie of South Carolina, who denounced the measure aspartial and sectional, not merely defended the principle of internalimprovements, but declared that it was a policy to be pursued only with thepurest national feeling. It was not the business of Congress, he said, tolegislate for this State or that, or to balance local interests, andbecause they helped one region to help another, but to act for the benefitof all the States united, and in making improvements to be guided only bytheir necessity. He showed that these roads would open up the West tosettlement, and incidentally defended the policy of selling the publiclands at a low price as an encouragement to emigration, telling hisSouthern friends very plainly that they could not expect to coerce thecourse of population in favor of their own section. The whole speech wasconceived in the broadest and wisest spirit, and marks another step in thedevelopment of Mr. Webster as a national statesman. It increased hisreputation, and brought to him a great accession of popularity in the West. 

The measure which he carried through was the famous "Crimes Act, " perhapsthe best monument that there is of his legislative and constructiveability. The criminal law of the United States had scarcely been touchedsince the days of the first Congress, and was very defective andunsatisfactory. Mr. Webster's first task, in which he received mostessential and valuable though unacknowledged assistance from Judge Story, was to codify and digest the whole body of criminal law. This done, thehardly less difficult undertaking followed of carrying the measure throughCongress. In the latter, Mr. Webster, by his skill in debate andfamiliarity with his subject, and by his influence in the House, wasperfectly successful. That he and Judge Story did their work well inperfecting the bill is shown by the admirable manner in which the Act stoodthe test of time and experience. 

When the new Congress came together in 1825, Mr. Webster at once turned hisattention to the improvement of the Judiciary, which he had been obliged topostpone in order to ward off the attacks upon the court. After muchdeliberation and thought, aided by Judge Story, and having made someconcessions to his committee, he brought in a bill increasing the SupremeCourt judges to ten, making ten instead of seven circuits, and providingthat six judges should constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Although not a party question, the measure excited much opposition, and wasmore than a month in passing through the House. Mr. Webster supported it atevery stage with great ability, and his two most important speeches, whichare in their way models for the treatment of such a subject, are preservedin his works. The bill was carried by his great strength in debate and byheight of forcible argument. But in the Senate, where it was deprived ofthe guardianship of its author, it hung along in uncertainty, and wasfinally lost through the apathy or opposition of those very Western membersfor whose benefit it had been devised. Mr. Webster took its ultimate defeatvery coolly. The Eastern States did not require it, and were perfectlycontented with the existing arrangements, and he was entirely satisfiedwith the assurance that the best lawyers and wisest men approved theprinciples of the bill. The time and thought which he had expended were notwasted so far as he was personally concerned, for they served to enhancehis influence and reputation both as a lawyer and statesman. 

This session brought with it also occasions for debate other than thosewhich were offered by measures of purely legislative and practicalinterest. The administration of Mr. Adams marks the close of the "era ofgood feeling, " as it was called, and sowed the germs of those divisionswhich were soon to result in new and definite party combinations. Mr. Adamsand Mr. Clay represented the conservative and General Jackson and hisfriends the radical or democratic elements in the now all-embracingRepublican party. It was inevitable that Mr. Webster should sympathize withthe former, and it was equally inevitable that in doing so he should becomethe leader of the administration forces in the House, where "his great andcommanding influence, " to quote the words of an opponent, made him a hosthimself. The desire of Mr. Adams to send representatives to the PanamaCongress, a scheme which lay very near his heart and to which Mr. Clay wasequally attached, encountered a bitter and factious resistance in theSenate, sufficient to deprive the measure of any real utility by delayingits passage. In the House a resolution was introduced declaring simply thatit was expedient to appropriate money to defray the expenses of theproposed mission. The opposition at once undertook by amendments toinstruct the ministers, and generally to go beyond the powers of the House. The real ground of the attack was slavery, threatened, as was supposed, bythe attitude of the South American republics--a fact which no oneunderstood or cared to recognize. Mr. Webster stood forth as the championof the Executive. In an elaborate speech of great ability he denounced theunconstitutional attempt to interfere with the prerogative of thePresident, and discussed with much effect the treaty-making power assailedon another famous occasion, many years before, by the South, and defendedat that time also by the eloquence of a representative of Massachusetts. Mr. Webster showed the nature of the Panama Congress, defended its objectsand the policy of the administration, and made a full and fine expositionof the intent of the "Monroe doctrine. " The speech was an important andeffective one. It exhibited in an exceptional way Mr. Webster's capacityfor discussing large questions of public and constitutional law and foreignpolicy, and was of essential service to the cause which he espoused. It wasimbued, too, with that sentiment of national unity which occupied a largerspace in his thoughts with each succeeding year, until it finally pervadedhis whole career as a public man. 

At the second session of the same Congress, after a vain effort to conferupon the country the benefit of a national bankrupt law, Mr. Webster wasagain called upon to defend the Executive in a much more heated conflictthan that aroused by the Panama resolution. Georgia was engaged inoppressing and robbing the Creek Indians, in open contempt of the treatiesand obligations of the United States. Mr. Adams sent in a message recitingthe facts and hinting pretty plainly that he intended to carry out the lawsby force unless Georgia desisted. The message was received with great wrathby the Southern members. They objected to any reference to a committee, andMr. Forsyth of Georgia declared the whole business to be "base andinfamous, " while a gentleman from Mississippi announced that Georgia wouldact as she pleased. Mr. Webster, having said that she would do so at herperil, was savagely attacked as the organ of the administration, daring tomenace and insult a sovereign State. This stirred Mr. Webster, althoughslow to anger, to a determination to carry through the reference at allhazards. He said:--

 "He would tell the gentleman from Georgia that if there were rights of the Indians which the United States were bound to protect, that there were those in the House and in the country who would take their part. If we have bound ourselves by any treaty to do certain things, we must fulfil such obligation. High words will not terrify us, loud declamation will not deter us from the discharge of that duty. In my own course in this matter I shall not be dictated to by any State or the representative of any State on this floor. I shall not be frightened from my purpose nor will I suffer harsh language to produce any reaction on my mind. I will examine with great and equal care all the rights of both parties. .. . I have made these few remarks to give the gentleman from Georgia to understand that it was not by bold denunciation nor by bold assumption that the members of this House are to be influenced in the decision of high public concerns. "

When Mr. Webster was thoroughly roused and indignant there was a darknessin his face and a gleam of dusky light in his deep-set eyes which were notaltogether pleasant to contemplate. How well Mr. Forsyth and his friendsbore the words and look of Mr. Webster we have no means of knowing, but themessage was referred to a select committee without a division. The interestto us in all this is the spirit in which Mr. Webster spoke. He loved theUnion as intensely then as at any period of his life, but he was still fardistant from the frame of mind which induced him to think that his devotionto the Union would be best expressed and the cause of the Union best servedby mildness toward the South and rebuke to the North. He believed in 1826that dignified courage and firm language were the surest means of keepingthe peace. He was quite right then, and he would have been always right ifhe had adhered to the plain words and determined manner to which he treatedMr. Forsyth and his friends. 

This session was crowded with work of varying importance, but the close ofMr. Webster's career in the lower House was near at hand. The failinghealth of Mr. E. H. Mills made it certain that Massachusetts would soon havea vacant seat in the Senate, and every one turned to Mr. Webster as theperson above all others entitled to this high office. He himself was by nomeans so quick in determining to accept the position. He would not eventhink of it until the impossibility of Mr. Mills's return was assured, andthen he had to meet the opposition of the administration and all itsfriends, who regarded with alarm the prospect of losing such a tower ofstrength in the House. Mr. Webster, indeed, felt that he could render thebest service in the lower branch, and urged the senatorship upon GovernorLincoln, who was elected, but declined. After this there seemed to be noescape from a manifest destiny. Despite the opposition of his friends inWashington, and his own reluctance, he finally accepted the office ofUnited States senator, which was conferred upon him by the Legislature ofMassachusetts in June, 1827. 

In tracing the labors of Mr. Webster during three years spent in the lowerHouse, no allusion has been made to the purely political side of his careerat this time, nor to his relations with the public men of the day. Theperiod was important, generally speaking, because it showed the first signsof the development of new parties, and to Mr. Webster in particular, because it brought him gradually toward the political and party positionwhich he was to occupy during the rest of his life. When he took his seatin Congress, in the autumn of 1823, the intrigues for the presidentialsuccession were at their height. Mr. Webster was then strongly inclined toMr. Calhoun, as was suspected at the time of that gentleman's visit toBoston. He soon became convinced, however, that Mr. Calhoun's chances ofsuccess were slight, and his good opinion of the distinguished SouthCarolinian seems also to have declined. It was out of the question for aman of Mr. Webster's temperament and habits of thought, to think for amoment of supporting Jackson, a candidate on the ground of military gloryand unreflecting popular enthusiasm. Mr. Adams, as the representative ofNew England, and as a conservative and trained statesman, was the naturaland proper candidate to receive the aid of Mr. Webster. But here partyfeelings and traditions stepped in. The Federalists of New England hadhated Mr. Adams with the peculiar bitterness which always grows out ofdomestic quarrels, whether in public or private life; and although the oldstrife had sunk a little out of sight, it had never been healed. TheFederalist leaders in Massachusetts still disliked and distrusted Mr. Adamswith an intensity none the less real because it was concealed. In thenature of things Mr. Webster now occupied a position of politicalindependence; but he had been a steady party man when his party was inexistence, and he was still a party man so far as the old Federalistfeelings retained vitality and force. He had, moreover, but a slightpersonal acquaintance with Mr. Adams and no very cordial feeling towardhim. This disposed of three presidential candidates. The fourth was Mr. Clay, and it is not very clear why Mr. Webster refused an alliance in thisquarter. Mr. Clay had treated him with consideration, they were personalfriends, their opinions were not dissimilar and were becoming constantlymore alike. Possibly there was an instinctive feeling of rivalry on thisvery account. At all events, Mr. Webster would not support Clay. Only onecandidate remained: Mr. Crawford, the representative of all that wasextreme among the Republicans, and, in a party sense, most odious to theFederalists. But it was a time when personal factions flourished rankly inthe absence of broad differences of principle. Mr. Crawford was biddingfuriously for support in every and any quarter, and to Mr. Crawford, accordingly, Mr. Webster began to look as a possible leader for himself andhis friends. Just how far Mr. Webster went in this direction cannot bereadily or surely determined, although we get some light on the subjectfrom an attack made on Mr. Crawford just at this time. Ninian Edwards, recently senator from Illinois, had a quarrel with Mr. Crawford, and sentin a memorial to Congress containing charges against the Secretary of theTreasury which were designed to break him down as a candidate for thepresidency. Of the merits of this quarrel it is not very easy to judge, even if it were important. The character of Edwards was none of the best, and Mr. Crawford had unquestionably made a highly unscrupulous use, politically, of his position. The members of the administration, althoughwith no great love for Edwards, who had been appointed Minister to Mexico, were distinctly hostile to Mr. Crawford, and refused to attend a dinnerfrom which Edwards had been expressly excluded. Mr. Webster's part in theaffair came from his being on the committee charged with the investigationof the Edwards memorial. Mr. Adams, who was of course excited by thepresidential contest, disposed to regard his rivals with extreme disfavor, and especially and justly suspicious of Mr. Crawford, speaks of Mr. Webster's conduct in the matter with the utmost bitterness. He refers to itagain and again as an attempt to screen Crawford and break down Edwards, and denounces Mr. Webster as false, insidious, and treacherous. Much ofthis may be credited to the heated animosities of the moment, but there canbe no doubt that Mr. Webster took the matter into his own hands in thecommittee, and made every effort to protect Mr. Crawford, in whose favor healso spoke in the House. It is likewise certain that there was an attemptto bring about an alliance between Crawford and the Federalists of theNorth and East. The effort was abortive, and even before the conclusion ofthe Edwards business Mr. Webster avowed that he should take but little partin the election, and that his only purpose was to secure the best termspossible for the Federalists, and obtain recognition for them from the nextadministration. At that time he wished Mr. Mason to be attorney-general, and had already turned his thoughts toward the English mission for himself. 

To this waiting policy he adhered, but when the popular election was over, and the final decision had been thrown into the House of Representatives, more definite action became necessary. From the questions which he put tohis brother and others as to the course which he ought to pursue in theelection by the House, it is obvious that he was far from anxious to securethe choice of Mr. Adams, and was weighing carefully other contingencies. The feeling of New England could not, however, be mistaken. Public opinionthere demanded that the members of the House should stand by the NewEngland candidate to the last. To this sentiment Mr. Webster submitted, andsoon afterwards took occasion to have an interview with Mr. Adams in orderto make the best terms possible for the Federalists, and obtain for themsuitable recognition. Mr. Adams assured Mr. Webster that he did not intendto proscribe any section or any party, and added that although he could notgive the Federalists representation in the cabinet, he should give them oneof the important appointments. Mr. Webster was entirely satisfied with thispromise and with all that was said by Mr. Adams, who, as everybody knows, was soon after elected by the House on the first ballot. 

Mr. Adams on his side saw plainly the necessity of conciliating Mr. Webster, whose great ability and influence he thoroughly understood. Hetold Mr. Clay that he had a high opinion of Mr. Webster, and wished to winhis support; and the savage tone displayed in regard to the Edwards affairnow disappears from the Diary. Mr. Adams, however, although he knew, as hesays, that "Webster was panting for the English mission, " and hinted thatthe wish might be gratified hereafter, was not ready to go so far at themoment, and at the same time he sought to dissuade Mr. Webster from being acandidate for the speakership, for which in truth the latter had noinclination. Their relations, indeed, soon grew very pleasant. Mr. Websternaturally became the leader of the administration forces in the House, while the President on his side sought Mr. Webster's advice, admired hisoration on Adams and Jefferson, dined at his house, and lived on terms offriendship and confidence with him. It is to be feared, however, that allthis was merely on the surface. Mr. Adams at the bottom of his heart never, in reality, relaxed in his belief that Mr. Webster was morally unsound. Mr. Webster, on the other hand, whose Federalist opposition to Mr. Adams hadonly been temporarily allayed, was not long in coming to the conclusionthat his services, if appreciated, were not properly recognized by theadministration. There was a good deal of justice in this view. The Englishmission never came, no help was to be obtained for Mr. Mason's election assenator from New Hampshire, the speakership was to be refused in order topromote harmony and strength in the House. To all this Mr. Webstersubmitted, and fought the battles of the administration in debate as no oneelse could have done. Nevertheless, all men like recognition, and Mr. Webster would have preferred something more solid than words and confidenceor the triumph of a common cause. When the Massachusetts senatorship was inquestion Mr. Adams urged the election of Governor Lincoln, and objected onthe most flattering grounds to Mr. Webster's withdrawal from the House. Itis not a too violent conjecture to suppose that Mr. Webster's finalacceptance of a seat in the Senate was due in large measure to a feelingthat he had sacrificed enough for the administration. There can be no doubtthat coolness grew between the President and the Senator, and that theappointment to England, if still desired, never was made, so that when thenext election came on Mr. Webster was inactive, and, despite his hostilityto Jackson, viewed the overthrow of Mr. Adams with a good deal ofindifference and some satisfaction. It is none the less true, however, thatduring these years when the first foundations of the future Whig party werelaid, Mr. Webster formed the political affiliations which were to lastthrough life. He inevitably found himself associated with Clay and Adams, and opposed to Jackson, Benton, and Van Buren, while at the same time heand Calhoun were fast drifting apart. He had no specially cordial feelingto his new associates; but they were at the head of the conservativeelements of the country, they were nationalists in policy, and they favoredthe views which were most affected in New England. As a conservative andnationalist by nature and education, and as the great New England leader, Mr. Webster could not avoid becoming the parliamentary chief of Mr. Adams'sadministration, and thus paved the way for leadership in the Whig party ofthe future. 

In narrating the history of these years, I have confined myself to Mr. Webster's public services and political course. But it was a period in hiscareer which was crowded with work and achievement, bringing fresh fame andincreased reputation, and also with domestic events both of joy and sorrow. Mr. Webster steadily pursued the practice of the law, and was constantlyengaged in the Supreme Court. To these years belong many of his greatarguments, and also the prosecution of the Spanish claims, a task at oncelaborious and profitable. In the summer of 1824 Mr. Webster first sawMarshfield, his future home, and in the autumn of the same year he visitedMonticello, where he had a long interview with Mr. Jefferson, of whom hehas left a most interesting description. During the winter he formed theacquaintance and lived much in the society of some well-known Englishmenthen travelling in this country. This party consisted of the Earl of Derby, then Mr. Stanley, Lord Wharncliffe, then Mr. Stuart Wortley; Lord Taunton, then Mr. Labouchere, and Mr. Denison, afterwards Speaker of the House ofCommons. With Mr. Denison this acquaintance was the foundation of a lastingand intimate friendship maintained by correspondence. In June, 1825, camethe splendid oration at Bunker Hill, and then a visit to Niagara, which, ofcourse, appealed strongly to Mr. Webster. His account of it, however, although indicative of a deep mental impression, shows that his power ofdescribing nature fell far short of his wonderful talent for picturinghuman passions and action. The next vacation brought the eulogy on Adamsand Jefferson, when perhaps Mr. Webster may be considered to have been inhis highest physical and intellectual perfection. Such at least was theopinion of Mr. Ticknor, who says:--

 "He was in the perfection of manly beauty and strength; his form filled out to its finest proportions, and his bearing, as he stood before the vast multitude, that of absolute dignity and power. His manner of speaking was deliberate and commanding. I never heard him when his manner was so grand and appropriate; . .. When he ended the minds of men were wrought up to an uncontrollable excitement, and then followed three tremendous cheers, inappropriate indeed, but as inevitable as any other great movement of nature. "

He had held the vast audience mute for over two hours, as John Quincy Adamssaid in his diary, and finally their excited feelings found vent in cheers. He spoke greatly because he felt greatly. His emotions, his imagination, his entire oratorical temperament were then full of quick sensibility. Whenhe finished writing the imaginary speech of John Adams in the quiet of hislibrary and the silence of the morning hour, his eyes were wet with tears. 

A year passed by after this splendid display of eloquence, and then thesecond congressional period, which had been so full of work andintellectual activity and well-earned distinction, closed, and he enteredupon that broader field which opened to him in the Senate of the UnitedStates, where his greatest triumphs were still to be achieved. 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE TARIFF OF 1828 AND THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 

The new dignity conferred on Mr. Webster by the people of Massachusetts hadhardly been assumed when he was called upon to encounter a trial which musthave made all his honors seem poor indeed. He had scarcely taken his seatwhen he was obliged to return to New York, where failing health hadarrested Mrs. Webster's journey to the capital, and where, after muchsuffering, she died, January 21, 1828. The blow fell with terrible severityupon her husband. He had many sorrows to bear during his life, but thissurpassed all others. His wife was the love of his youth, the mother of hischildren, a lovely woman whose strong but gentle influence for good was nowlost to him irreparably. In his last days his thoughts reverted to her, andas he followed her body to the grave, on foot in the wet and cold, andleading his children by the hand, it must indeed have seemed as if the wineof life had been drunk and only the lees remained. He was excessively pale, and to those who looked upon him seemed crushed and heart-broken. 

The only relief was to return to his work and to the excitement of publicaffairs; but the cloud hung over him long after he was once more in hisplace in the Senate. Death had made a wound in his life which time healedbut of which the scar remained. Whatever were Mr. Webster's faults, hisaffection for those nearest to him, and especially for the wife of hisyouth, was deep and strong. 

 "The very first day of Mr. Webster's arrival and taking his seat in the Senate, " Judge Story writes to Mr. Ticknor, "there was a process bill on its third reading, filled, as he thought, with inconvenient and mischievous provisions. He made, in a modest undertone, some inquiries, and, upon an answer being given, he expressed in a few words his doubts and fears. Immediately Mr. Tazewell from Virginia broke out upon him in a speech of two hours. Mr. Webster then moved an adjournment, and on the next day delivered a most masterly speech in reply, expounding the whole operation of the intended act in the clearest manner, so that a recommitment was carried almost without an effort. It was a triumph of the most gratifying nature, and taught his opponents the danger of provoking a trial of his strength, even when he was overwhelmed by calamity. In the labors of the court he has found it difficult to work himself up to high efforts; but occasionally he comes out with all his powers, and when he does, it is sure to attract a brilliant audience. "

It would be impossible to give a better picture than that presented byJudge Story of Mr. Webster's appearance and conduct in the monthimmediately following the death of his wife. We can see how his talents, excited by the conflicts of the Senate and the court, struggled, sometimessuccessfully, sometimes in vain, with the sense of loss and sorrow whichoppressed him. 

He did not again come prominently forward in the Senate until the end ofApril, when he roused himself to prevent injustice. The bill for the reliefof the surviving officers of the Revolution seemed on the point of beinglost. The object of the measure appealed to Mr. Webster's love for thepast, to his imagination, and his patriotism. He entered into the debate, delivered the fine and dignified speech which is preserved in his works, and saved the bill. 

A fortnight after this he made his famous speech on the tariff of 1828, abill making extensive changes in the rates of duties imposed in 1816 and1824. This speech marks an important change in Mr. Webster's views and inhis course as a statesman. He now gave up his position as the ablestopponent in the country of the protective policy, and went over to thesupport of the tariff and the "American system" of Mr. Clay. This change, in every way of great importance, subjected Mr. Webster to severe criticismboth then and subsequently. It is, therefore, necessary to examine brieflyhis previous utterances on this question in order to reach a correctunderstanding of his motives in taking this important step and toappreciate his reasons for the adoption of a policy with which, after theyear 1828, he was so closely identified. 

When Mr. Webster first entered Congress he was a thorough-going Federalist. But the Federalists of New England differed from their great chief, Alexander Hamilton, on the question of a protective policy. Hamilton, inhis report on manufactures, advocated with consummate ability the adoptionof the principle of protection for nascent industries as an integral andessential part of a true national policy, and urged it on its own merits, without any reference to its being incident to revenue. The New EnglandFederalists, on the other hand, coming from exclusively commercialcommunities, were in principle free-traders. They regarded with disfavorthe doctrine that protection was a good thing in itself, and desired it, ifat all, only in the most limited form and purely as an incident to raisingrevenue. With these opinions Mr. Webster was in full sympathy, and he tookoccasion when Mr. Calhoun, in 1814, spoke in favor of the existing doubleduties as a protective measure, and also in favor of manufactures, duringthe debate on the repeal of the embargo, to define his position on thisimportant question. A few brief extracts will show his views, which wereexpressed very clearly and with his wonted ability and force. 

 "I consider, " he said, "the imposition of double duties as a mere financial measure. Its great object was to raise revenue, not to foster manufactures. .. . I do not say the double duties ought to be continued. I think they ought not. But what I particularly object to is the holding out of delusive expectations to those concerned in manufactures. .. . In respect to manufactures it is necessary to speak with some precision. I am not, generally speaking, their enemy. I am their friend; but I am not for rearing them or any other interest in hot-beds. I would not legislate precipitately, even in favor of them; above all, I would not profess intentions in relation to them which I did not purpose to execute. I feel no desire to push capital into extensive manufactures faster than the general progress of our wealth and population propels it. 

 "I am not in haste to see Sheffields and Birminghams in America. Until the population of the country shall be greater in proportion to its extent, such establishments would be impracticable if attempted, and if practicable they would be unwise. "

He then pointed out the inferiority and the perils of manufactures as anoccupation in comparison with agriculture, and concluded as follows:--

 "I am not anxious to accelerate the approach of the period when the great mass of American labor shall not find its employment in the field; when the young men of the country shall be obliged to shut their eyes upon external nature, upon the heavens and the earth, and immerse themselves in close and unwholesome workshops; when they shall be obliged to shut their ears to the bleatings of their own flocks upon their own hills, and to the voice of the lark that cheers them at the plough, that they may open them in dust and smoke and steam to the perpetual whirl of spools and spindles, and the grating of rasps and saws. I have made these remarks, sir, not because I perceive any immediate danger of carrying our manufactures to an extensive height, but for the purpose of guarding and limiting my opinions, and of checking, perhaps, a little the high-wrought hopes of some who seem to look to our present infant establishments for 'more than their nature or their state can bear. '

 "_It is the true policy of government to suffer the different pursuits of society to take their own course, and not to give excessive bounties or encouragements to one over another. This, also, is the true spirit of the Constitution. It has not, in my opinion, conferred on the government the power of changing the occupations of the people of different States and sections, and of forcing them into other employments. _ It cannot prohibit commerce any more than agriculture, nor manufactures any more than commerce. It owes protection to all. "

The sentences in italics constitute a pretty strong and explicit statementof the _laissez faire_ doctrine, and it will be observed that the tone ofall the extracts is favorable to free trade and hostile to protection andeven to manufactures in a marked degree. We see, also, that Mr. Webster, with his usual penetration and justice of perception, saw very clearly thatuniformity and steadiness of policy were more essential than even thepolicy itself, and in his opinion were most likely to be attained byrefraining from protection as much as possible. 

When the tariff of 1816 was under discussion Mr. Webster made no elaboratespeech against it, probably feeling that it was hopeless to attempt todefeat the measure as a whole, but he devoted himself with almost completesuccess to the task of reducing the proposed duties and to securingmodifications of various portions of the bill. 

In 1820, when the tariff recommended at the previous session was about tocome before Congress, Mr. Webster was not in public life. He attended, however, a meeting of merchants and agriculturists, held in Faneuil Hall inthe summer of that year, to protest against the proposed tariff, and hespoke strongly in favor of the free trade resolutions which were thenadopted. He began by saying that he was a friend to manufactures, but notto the tariff, which he considered as most injurious to the country. 

 "He certainly thought it might be doubted whether Congress would not be acting somewhat against the spirit and intention of the Constitution in exercising a power to control essentially the pursuits and occupations of individuals in their private concerns--a power to force great and sudden changes both of occupation and property upon individuals, _not as incidental to the exercise of any other power, but as a substantial and direct power_. "

It will be observed that he objects to the constitutionality of protectionas a "direct power, " and in the speech of 1814, in the portion quoted initalics, he declared against any general power still more forcibly andbroadly. It is an impossible piece of subtlety and refining, therefore, toargue that Mr. Webster always held consistently to his views as to thelimitations of the revenue power as a source of protection, and that he putprotection in 1828, and subsequently sustained it after his change ofposition, on new and general constitutional grounds. In the speeches of1814 and 1820 he declared expressly against the doctrine of a general powerof protection, saying, in the latter instance:--

 "It would hardly be contended that Congress possessed that sort of general power by which it might declare that particular occupations should be pursued in society and that others should not. _If such power belonged to any government in this country, it certainly did not belong to the general government. _"

Mr. Webster took the New England position that there was no general power, and having so declared in this speech of 1820, he then went on to show thatprotection could only come as incidental to revenue, and that, even in thisway, it became unconstitutional when the incident was turned into theprinciple and when protection and not revenue was the object of the duties. After arguing this point, he proceeded to discuss the general expediencyof protection, holding it up as a thoroughly mistaken policy, a failure inEngland which that country would gladly be rid of, and defending commerceas the truest and best support of the government and of general prosperity. He took up next the immediate effects of the proposed tariff, and, premising that it would confessedly cause a diminution of the revenue, said:--

 "In truth, every man in the community not immediately benefited by the new duties would suffer a double loss. In the first place, by shutting out the former commodity, the price of the domestic manufacture would be raised. The consumer, therefore, must pay more for it, and insomuch as government will have lost the duty on the imported article, a tax equal to that duty must be paid to the government. The real amount, then, of this bounty on a given article will be precisely the amount of the present duty added to the amount of the proposed duty. "

He then went on to show the injustice which would be done to allmanufacturers of unprotected articles, and ridiculed the idea of theconnection between home industries artificially developed and nationalindependence. He concluded by assailing manufacturing as an occupation, attacking it as a means of making the rich richer and the poor poorer; ofinjuring business by concentrating capital in the hands of a few whoobtained control of the corporations; of distributing capital less widelythan commerce; of breeding up a dangerous and undesirable population; andof leading to the hurtful employment of women and children. The meeting, the resolutions, and the speech were all in the interests of commerce andfree trade, and Mr. Webster's doctrines were on the most approved patternof New England Federalism, which, professing a mild friendship formanufactures and unwillingly conceding the minimum of protection solely asan incident to revenue, was, at bottom, thoroughly hostile to both. In 1820Mr. Webster stood forth, both politically and constitutionally, as afree-trader, moderate but at the same time decided in his opinions. 

When the tariff of 1824 was brought before Congress and advocated withgreat zeal by Mr. Clay, who upheld it as the "American system, " Mr. Websteropposed the policy in the fullest and most elaborate speech he had yet madeon the subject. A distinguished American economist, Mr. Edward Atkinson, has described this speech of 1824 briefly and exactly in the followingwords:--

 "It contains a refutation of the exploded theory of the balance of trade, of the fallacy with regard to the exportation of specie, and of the claim that the policy of protection is distinctively the American policy which can never be improved upon, and it indicates how thoroughly his judgment approved and his better nature sympathized with the movement towards enlightened and liberal commercial legislation, then already commenced in Great Britain. "

This speech was in truth one of great ability, showing a remarkablecapacity for questions of political economy, and opening with an admirablediscussion of the currency and of finance, in regard to which Mr. Websteralways held and advanced the soundest, most scientific, and mostenlightened views. Now, as in 1820, he stood forth as the especial championof commerce, which, as he said, had thriven without protection, had broughtrevenue to the government and wealth to the country, and would begrievously injured by the proposed tariff. He made his principal objectionto the protection policy on the ground of favoritism to some interests atthe expense of others when all were entitled to equal consideration. OfEngland he said, "Because a thing has been wrongly done, it does not followthat it can be undone; and this is the reason, as I understand it, forwhich exclusion, prohibition, and monopoly are suffered to remain in anydegree in the English system. " After examining at length the differentvarieties of protection, and displaying very thoroughly the state ofcurrent English opinion, he defined the position which he, in common withthe Federalists of New England, then as always adhered to in the followingwords:--

 "Protection, when carried to the point which is now recommended, that is, to entire prohibition, seems to me destructive of all commercial intercourse between nations. We are urged to adopt the system on general principles; . .. I do not admit the general principle; on the contrary, I think freedom of trade the general principle, and restriction the exception. "

He pointed out that the proposed protective policy involved a decline ofcommerce, and that steadiness and uniformity, the most essential requisitesin any policy, were endangered. He then with great power dealt with thevarious points summarized by Mr. Atkinson, and concluded with a detailedand learned examination of the various clauses of the bill, which finallypassed by a small majority and became law. 

In 1828 came another tariff bill, so bad and so extreme in many respectsthat it was called the "bill of abominations. " It originated in theagitation of the woollen manufacturers which had started the year before, and for this bill Mr. Webster spoke and voted. He changed his ground onthis important question absolutely and entirely, and made no pretence ofdoing anything else. The speech which he made on this occasion is acelebrated one, but it is so solely on account of the startling change ofposition which it announced. Mr. Webster has been attacked and defended forhis action at this time with great zeal, and all the constitutional andeconomic arguments for and against protection are continually broughtforward in this connection. From the tone of the discussion, it is to befeared that many of those who are interested in the question have nottaken the trouble to read what he said. The speech of 1828 is by no meansequal in any way to its predecessors in the same field. It is brief andsimple to the last degree. It has not a shred of constitutional argument, nor does it enter at all into a discussion of general principles. It makesbut one point, and treats that point with great force as the only one to bemade under the circumstances, and thereby presents the single andsufficient reason for its author's vote. A few lines from the speech givethe marrow of the whole matter. Mr. Webster said:--

 "New England, sir, has not been a leader in this policy. On the contrary, she held back herself and tried to hold others back from it, from the adoption of the Constitution to 1824. Up to 1824 she was accused of sinister and selfish designs, _because she discountenanced the progress of this policy_. .. . Under this angry denunciation against her the act of 1824 passed. Now the imputation is of a precisely opposite character. .. . Both charges, sir, are equally without the slightest foundation. The opinion of New England up to 1824 was founded in the conviction that, on the whole, it was wisest and best, both for herself and others, that manufactures should make haste slowly. .. . When, at the commencement of the late war, duties were doubled, we were told that we should find a mitigation of the weight of taxation in the new aid and succor which would be thus afforded to our own manufacturing labor. Like arguments were urged, and prevailed, but not by the aid of New England votes, when the tariff was afterwards arranged at the close of the war in 1816. Finally, after a winter's deliberation, the act of 1824 received the sanction of both Houses of Congress and settled the policy of the country. What, then, was New England to do?. .. Was she to hold out forever against the course of the government, and see herself losing on one side and yet make no effort to sustain herself on the other? No, sir. Nothing was left to New England but to conform herself to the will of others. Nothing was left to her but to consider that the government had fixed and determined its own policy; and that policy was _protection_. .. . I believe, sir, almost every man from New England who voted against the law of 1824 declared that if, notwithstanding his opposition to that law, it should still pass, there would be no alternative but to consider the course and policy of the government as then settled and fixed, and to act accordingly. The law did pass; and a vast increase of investment in manufacturing establishments was the consequence. "

Opinion in New England changed for good and sufficient business reasons, and Mr. Webster changed with it. Free trade had commended itself to him asan abstract principle, and he had sustained and defended it as in theinterest of commercial New England. But when the weight of interest in NewEngland shifted from free trade to protection Mr. Webster followed it. Hisconstituents were by no means unanimous in support of the tariff in 1828, but the majority favored it, and Mr. Webster went with the majority. At apublic dinner given to him in Boston at the close of the session, heexplained to the dissentient minority the reasons for his vote, which werevery simple. He thought that good predominated over evil in the bill, andthat the majority throughout the whole State of which he was therepresentative favored the tariff, and therefore he had voted in theaffirmative. 

Much fault has been found, as has been said, both at the time and since, with Mr. Webster's change of position on this question. It has been held upas a monument of inconsistency, and as indicating a total absence of deepconviction. That Mr. Webster was, in a certain sense, inconsistent isbeyond doubt, but consistency is the bugbear of small minds, as well as amark of strong characters, while its reverse is often the proof of wisdom. On the other hand, it may be fairly argued that, holding as he did that thewhole thing was purely a business question to be decided according tocircumstances, his course, in view of the policy adopted by the government, was at bottom perfectly consistent. As to the want of deep conviction, Mr. Webster's vote on this question proves nothing. He believed in free tradeas an abstract general principle, and there is no reason to suppose that heever abandoned his belief on this point. But he had too clear a mind everto be run away with by the extreme vagaries of the Manchester school. Heknew that there was no morality, no immutable right and wrong, in animpost or a free list. It has been the fashion to refer to Mr. Disraeli'sdeclaration that free trade was "a mere question of expediency" as a proofof that gentleman's cynical indifference to moral principles. That the lateEarl of Beaconsfield had no deep convictions on any subject may be readilyadmitted, but in this instance he uttered a very plain and simple truth, which all the talk in the world about free trade as the harbinger andfoundation of universal peace on earth, cannot disguise. 

Mr. Webster never at any time treated the question of free trade orprotection as anything but one of expediency. Under the lead of Mr. Calhoun, in 1816, the South and West initiated a protective policy, andafter twelve years it had become firmly established and New England hadadapted herself to it. Mr. Webster, as a New England representative, resisted the protective policy at the outset as against her interests, butwhen she had conformed to the new conditions, he came over to its supportsimply on the ground of expediency. He rested the defence of his newposition upon the doctrine which he had always consistently preached, thatuniformity and permanency were the essential and sound conditions of anypolicy, whether of free trade or protection. In 1828, neither at the dinnerin Boston nor in the Senate, did he enter into any discussion of generalprinciples or constitutional theories. He merely said, in substance, Youhave chosen to make protection necessary to New England, and therefore I amnow forced to vote for it. This was the position which he continued to holdto the end of his life. As he was called upon, year after year, to defendprotection, and as New England became more and more wedded to the tariff, he elaborated his arguments on many points, but the essence of all he saidafterwards is to be found in the speech of 1828. On the constitutionalpoint he was obliged to make a more violent change. He held, of course, tohis opinion that, under the revenue power, protection could be incidentalonly, because from that doctrine there was no escape. But he dropped thecondemnation expressed in 1814 and the doubts uttered in 1820 as to thetheory that it was within the direct power of Congress to enact aprotective tariff, and assumed that they had this right as one of thegeneral powers in the Constitution, or that at all events they hadexercised it, and that therefore the question was henceforward to beconsidered as _res adjudicata_. The speech of 1828 marks the separation ofMr. Webster from the opinions of the old school of New England Federalism. Thereafter he stood forth as the champion of the tariff and of the"American system" of Henry Clay. Regarding protection in its true light, asa mere question of expediency, he followed the interests of New Englandand of the great industrial communities of the North. That he shifted hisground at the proper moment, bad as the "bill of abominations" was, andthat, as a Northern statesman, he was perfectly justified in doing so, cannot be fairly questioned or criticised. It is true that his course was asectional one, but everybody else's on this question was the same, and itcould not be, it never has been, and never will be otherwise. 

The tariff of 1828 was destined indirectly to have far more importantresults to Mr. Webster than the brief speech in which he signalized hischange of position on the question of protection. Soon after the passage ofthe act, in May, 1828, the South Carolina delegation held a meeting to takesteps to resist the operation of the tariff, but nothing definite was thenaccomplished. Popular meetings in South Carolina, characterized by muchviolent talk, followed, however, during the summer, and in the autumn theLegislature of the State put forth the famous "exposition and protest"which emanated from Mr. Calhoun, and embodied in the fullest and strongestterms the principles of "nullification. " These movements were viewed withregret and with some alarm throughout the country, but they were ratherlost sight of in the intense excitement of the presidential election. Theaccession of Jackson then came to absorb the public attention, and broughtwith it the sweeping removals from office which Mr. Webster stronglydenounced. At the same time he was not led into the partisan absurdity ofdenying the President's power of removal, and held to the impregnableposition of steady resistance to the evils of patronage, which could becured only by the operation of an enlightened public sentiment. It isobvious now that, in the midst of all this agitation about other matters, Mr. Calhoun and the South Carolinians never lost sight of the conflict forwhich they were preparing, and that they were on the alert to bringnullification to the front in a more menacing and pronounced fashion thanhad yet been attempted. 

The grand assault was finally made in the Senate, under the eye of thegreat nullifier, who then occupied the chair of the Vice-President, andcame in an unexpected way. In December, 1829, Mr. Foote of Connecticutintroduced a harmless resolution of inquiry respecting the sales andsurveys of the Western lands. In the long-drawn debate which ensued, General Hayne of South Carolina, on January 19, 1830, made an elaborateattack on the New England States. He accused them of a desire to check thegrowth of the West in the interests of the protective policy, and tried toshow the sympathy which should exist between the West and South, and leadthem to make common cause against the tariff. Mr. Webster felt that thisattack could not be left unanswered, and the next day he replied to it. This first speech on Foote's resolution has been so obscured by thegreatness of the second that it is seldom referred to and but little read. Yet it is one of the most effective retorts, one of the strongest pieces ofdestructive criticism, ever uttered in the Senate, although its purpose wassimply to repel the charge of hostility to the West on the part of NewEngland. The accusation was in fact absurd, and but few years had elapsedsince Mr. Webster and New England had been assailed by Mr. McDuffie fordesiring to build up the West at the expense of the South by the policy ofinternal improvements. It was not difficult, therefore, to show thegroundlessness of this new attack, but Mr. Webster did it with consummateart and great force, shattering Hayne's elaborate argument to pieces andtreading it under foot. Mr. Webster only alluded incidentally to the tariffagitation in South Carolina, but the crushing nature of the reply inflamedand mortified Mr. Hayne, who, on the following day, insisted on Mr. Webster's presence, and spoke for the second time at great length. He madea bitter attack upon New England, upon Mr. Webster personally, and upon thecharacter and patriotism of Massachusetts. He then made a full expositionof the doctrine of nullification, giving free expression of the views andprinciples entertained by his master and leader, who presided over thediscussion. The debate had now drifted far from the original resolution, but its real object had been reached at last. The war upon the tariff hadbeen begun, and the standard of nullification and of resistance to theUnion and to the laws of Congress had been planted boldly in the Senate ofthe United States. The debate was adjourned and Mr. Hayne did not concludetill January 25. The next day Mr. Webster replied in the second speech onFoote's resolution, which is popularly known as the "Reply to Hayne. "

This great speech marks the highest point attained by Mr. Webster as apublic man. He never surpassed it, he never equalled it afterwards. It washis zenith intellectually, politically, and as an orator. His fame grew andextended in the years which followed, he won ample distinction in otherfields, he made many other splendid speeches, but he never went beyond thereply which he made to the Senator from South Carolina on January 26, 1830. 

The doctrine of nullification, which was the main point both with Hayne andWebster, was no new thing. The word was borrowed from the Kentuckyresolutions of 1799, and the principle was contained in the more cautiousphrases of the contemporary Virginia resolutions and of the HartfordConvention in 1814. The South Carolinian reproduction in 1830 was fullerand more elaborate than its predecessors and supported by more acutereasoning, but the principle was unchanged. Mr. Webster's argument wassimple but overwhelming. He admitted fully the right of revolution. Heaccepted the proposition that no one was bound to obey an unconstitutionallaw; but the essential question was who was to say whether a law wasunconstitutional or not. Each State has that authority, was the reply ofthe nullifiers, and if the decision is against the validity of the law itcannot be executed within the limits of the dissenting State. The vigoroussarcasm with which Mr. Webster depicted practical nullification, and showedthat it was nothing more or less than revolution when actually carried out, was really the conclusive answer to the nullifying doctrine. But Mr. Calhoun and his school eagerly denied that nullification rested on theright to revolt against oppression. They argued that it was aconstitutional right; that they could live within the Constitution andbeyond it, --inside the house and outside it at one and the same time. Theycontended that, the Constitution being a compact between the States, theFederal government was the creation of the States; yet, in the same breath, they declared that the general government was a party to the contract fromwhich it had itself emanated, in order to get rid of the difficulty ofproving that, while the single dissenting State could decide against thevalidity of a law, the twenty or more other States, also parties to thecontract, had no right to deliver an opposite judgment which should bebinding as the opinion of the majority of the court. There was nothing veryingenious or very profound in the argument by which Mr. Websterdemonstrated the absurdity of the doctrine which attempted to makenullification a peaceable constitutional privilege, when it could be inpractice nothing else than revolution. But the manner in which he put theargument was magnificent and final. As he himself said, in this very speechof Samuel Dexter, "his statement was argument, his inferencedemonstration. "

The weak places in his armor were historical in their nature. It wasprobably necessary, at all events Mr. Webster felt it to be so, to arguethat the Constitution at the outset was not a compact between the States, but a national instrument, and to distinguish the cases of Virginia andKentucky in 1799 and of New England in 1814, from that of South Carolina in1830. The former point he touched upon lightly, the latter he discussedably, eloquently, ingeniously, and at length. Unfortunately the facts wereagainst him in both instances. When the Constitution was adopted by thevotes of States at Philadelphia, and accepted by the votes of States inpopular conventions, it is safe to say that there was not a man in thecountry from Washington and Hamilton on the one side, to George Clinton andGeorge Mason on the other, who regarded the new system as anything but anexperiment entered upon by the States and from which each and every Statehad the right peaceably to withdraw, a right which was very likely to beexercised. When the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions appeared they werenot opposed on constitutional grounds, but on those of expediency and ofhostility to the revolution which they were considered to embody. Hamilton, and no one knew the Constitution better than he, treated them as thebeginnings of an attempt to change the government, as the germs of aconspiracy to destroy the Union. As Dr. Von Holst tersely and accuratelystates it, "there was no time as yet to attempt to strangle the healthyhuman mind in a net of logical deductions. " That was the work reserved forJohn C. Calhoun. 

What is true of 1799 is true of the New England leaders at Washington whenthey discussed the feasibility of secession in 1804; of the declaration infavor of secession made by Josiah Quincy in Congress a few years later; ofthe resistance of New England during the war of 1812, and of the right of"interposition" set forth by the Hartford Convention. In all theseinstances no one troubled himself about the constitutional aspect; it was aquestion of expediency, of moral and political right or wrong. In everycase the right was simply stated, and the uniform answer was, such a stepmeans the overthrow of the present system. 

When South Carolina began her resistance to the tariff in 1830, times hadchanged, and with them the popular conception of the government establishedby the Constitution. It was now a much more serious thing to threaten theexistence of the Federal government than it had been in 1799, or even in1814. The great fabric which had been gradually built up made an overthrowof the government look very terrible; it made peaceable secession amockery, and a withdrawal from the Union equivalent to civil war. Theboldest hesitated to espouse any principle which was avowedlyrevolutionary, and on both sides men wished to have a constitutionaldefence for every doctrine which they promulgated. This was the feelingwhich led Mr. Calhoun to elaborate and perfect with all the ingenuity ofhis acute and logical mind the arguments in favor of nullification as aconstitutional principle. At the same time the theory of nullification, however much elaborated, had not altered in its essence from the bald andbrief statement of the Kentucky resolutions. The vast change had come onthe other side of the question, in the popular idea of the Constitution. Itwas no longer regarded as an experiment from which the contracting partieshad a right to withdraw, but as the charter of a national government. "Itis a critical moment, " said Mr. Bell of New Hampshire to Mr. Webster, onthe morning of January 26, "and it is time, it is high time that thepeople of this country should know what this Constitution _is_. " "Then, "answered Mr. Webster, "by the blessing of heaven they shall learn, thisday, before the sun goes down, what I understand it to be. " With thesewords on his lips he entered the senate chamber, and when he replied toHayne he stated what the Union and the government had come to be at thatmoment. He defined the character of the Union as it existed in 1830, andthat definition so magnificently stated, and with such grand eloquence, went home to the hearts of the people, and put into noble words thesentiment which they felt but had not expressed. This was the significanceof the reply to Hayne. It mattered not what men thought of the Constitutionin 1789. The government which was then established might have degeneratedinto a confederation little stronger than its predecessor. But theConstitution did its work better, and converted a confederacy into anation. Mr. Webster set forth the national conception of the Union. Heexpressed what many men were vaguely thinking and believing, and theprinciples which he made clear and definite went on broadening anddeepening until, thirty years afterwards, they had a force sufficient tosustain the North and enable her to triumph in the terrible struggle whichresulted in the preservation of national life. When Mr. Webster showed thatpractical nullification was revolution, he had answered completely theSouth Carolinian doctrine, for revolution is not susceptible ofconstitutional argument. But in the state of public opinion at that time itwas necessary to discuss nullification on constitutional grounds also, andMr. Webster did this as eloquently and ably as the nature of the caseadmitted. Whatever the historical defects of his position, he put weaponsinto the hands of every friend of the Union, and gave reasons and argumentsto the doubting and timid. Yet after all is said, the meaning of Mr. Webster's speech in our history and its significance to us are, that it setforth with every attribute of eloquence the nature of the Union as it haddeveloped under the Constitution. He took the vague popular conception andgave it life and form and character. He said, as he alone could say, thepeople of the United States are a nation, they are the masters of anempire, their union is indivisible, and the words which then rang out inthe senate chamber have come down through long years of political conflictand of civil war, until at last they are part of the political creed ofevery one of his fellow-countrymen. 

The reply to Hayne cannot, however, be dismissed with a consideration ofits historical and political meaning or of its constitutional significance. It has a personal and literary importance of hardly less moment. Therecomes an occasion, a period perhaps, in the life of every man when hetouches his highest point, when he does his best, or even, under a suddeninspiration and excitement, something better than his best, and to which hecan never again attain. At the moment it is often impossible to detect thispoint, but when the man and his career have passed into history, and we cansurvey it all spread out before us like a map, the pinnacle of success caneasily be discovered. The reply to Hayne was the zenith of Mr. Webster'slife, and it is the place of all others where it is fit to pause and studyhim as a parliamentary orator and as a master of eloquence. 

Before attempting, however, to analyze what he said, let us strive torecall for a moment the scene of his great triumph. On the morning of thememorable day, the senate chamber was packed by an eager and excited crowd. Every seat on the floor and in the galleries was occupied, and all theavailable standing-room was filled. The protracted debate, conducted withso much ability on both sides, had excited the attention of the wholecountry, and had given time for the arrival of hundreds of interestedspectators from all parts of the Union, and especially from New England. The fierce attacks of the Southern leaders had angered and alarmed thepeople of the North. They longed with an intense longing to have theseassaults met and repelled, and yet they could not believe that thisapparently desperate feat could be successfully accomplished. Men of theNorth and of New England could be known in Washington, in those days, bytheir indignant but dejected looks and downcast eyes. They gathered in thesenate chamber on the appointed day, quivering with anticipation, and withhope and fear struggling for the mastery in their breasts. With them weremingled those who were there from mere curiosity, and those who had comerejoicing in the confident expectation that the Northern champion wouldsuffer failure and defeat. 

In the midst of the hush of expectation, in that dead silence which is sopeculiarly oppressive because it is possible only when many human beingsare gathered together, Mr. Webster rose. He had sat impassive and immovableduring all the preceding days, while the storm of argument and invectivehad beaten about his head. At last his time had come; and as he rose andstood forth, drawing himself up to his full height, his personal grandeurand his majestic calm thrilled all who looked upon him. With perfectquietness, unaffected apparently by the atmosphere of intense feeling abouthim, he said, in a low, even tone: "Mr. President: When the mariner hasbeen tossed for many days in thick weather and on an unknown sea, henaturally avails himself of the first pause in the storm, the earliestglance of the sun, to take his latitude and ascertain how far the elementshave driven him from his true course. Let us imitate this prudence; and, before we float farther on the waves of this debate, refer to the pointfrom which we departed, that we may, at least, be able to conjecture wherewe now are. I ask for the reading of the resolution before the Senate. "This opening sentence was a piece of consummate art. The simple andappropriate image, the low voice, the calm manner, relieved the strainedexcitement of the audience, which might have ended by disconcerting thespeaker if it had been maintained. Every one was now at his ease; and whenthe monotonous reading of the resolution ceased Mr. Webster was master ofthe situation, and had his listeners in complete control. With breathlessattention they followed him as he proceeded. The strong masculinesentences, the sarcasm, the pathos, the reasoning, the burning appeals tolove of State and country, flowed on unbroken. As his feelings warmed thefire came into his eyes; there was a glow on his swarthy cheek; his strongright arm seemed to sweep away resistlessly the whole phalanx of hisopponents, and the deep and melodious cadences of his voice sounded likeharmonious organ-tones as they filled the chamber with their music. As thelast words died away into silence, those who had listened lookedwonderingly at each other, dimly conscious that they had heard one of thegrand speeches which are land-marks in the history of eloquence; and themen of the North and of New England went forth full of the pride ofvictory, for their champion had triumphed, and no assurance was needed toprove to the world that this time no answer could be made. 

As every one knows, this speech contains much more than the argumentagainst nullification, which has just been discussed, and exhibits all itsauthor's intellectual gifts in the highest perfection. Mr. Hayne hadtouched on every conceivable subject of political importance, includingslavery, which, however covered up, was really at the bottom of everySouthern movement, and was certain sooner or later to come to the surface. All these various topics Mr. Webster took up, one after another, displayinga most remarkable strength of grasp and ease of treatment. He dealt withthem all effectively and yet in just proportion. Throughout there arebursts of eloquence skilfully mingled with statement and argument, so thatthe listeners were never wearied by a strained and continuous rhetoricaldisplay; and yet, while the attention was closely held by the even flow oflucid reasoning, the emotions and passions were from time to time deeplyaroused and strongly excited. In many passages of direct retort Mr. Websterused an irony which he employed always in a perfectly characteristic way. He had a strong natural sense of humor, but he never made fun or descendedto trivial efforts to excite laughter against his opponent. He was not awitty man or a maker of epigrams. But he was a master in the use of a cold, dignified sarcasm, which at times, and in this instance particularly, heused freely and mercilessly. Beneath the measured sentences there is alurking smile which saves them from being merely savage and cuttingattacks, and yet brings home a keen sense of the absurdity of theopponent's position. The weapon resembled more the sword of Richard thanthe scimetar of Saladin, but it was none the less a keen and trenchantblade. There is probably no better instance of Mr. Webster's power ofsarcasm than the famous passage in which he replied to Hayne's taunt aboutthe "murdered coalition, " which was said to have existed between Adams andCalhoun. In a totally different vein is the passage about Massachusetts, perhaps in its way as good an example as we have of Webster's power ofappealing to the higher and more tender feelings of human nature. Thethought is simple and even obvious, and the expression unadorned, and yetwhat he said had that subtle quality which stirred and still stirs theheart of every man born on the soil of the old Puritan Commonwealth. 

The speech as a whole has all the qualities which made Mr. Webster a greatorator, and the same traits run through his other speeches. An analysis ofthe reply to Hayne, therefore, gives us all the conditions necessary toforming a correct idea of Mr. Webster's eloquence, of its characteristicsand its value. The Attic school of oratory subordinated form to thought toavoid the misuse of ornament, and triumphed over the more florid practiceof the so-called "Asiatics. " Rome gave the palm to Atticism, and modernoratory has gone still farther in the same direction, until its predominantquality has become that of making sustained appeals to the understanding. Logical vigilance and long chains of reasoning, avoided by the ancients, are the essentials of our modern oratory. Many able men have achievedsuccess under these conditions as forcible and convincing speakers. But thegrand eloquence of modern times is distinguished by the bursts of feeling, of imagery or of invective, joined with convincing argument. Thiscombination is rare, and whenever we find a man who possesses it we may besure that, in greater or less degree, he is one of the great masters ofeloquence as we understand it. The names of those who in debate or to ajury have been in every-day practice strong and effective speakers, andalso have thrilled and shaken large masses of men, readily occur to us. Tothis class belong Chatham and Burke, Fox, Sheridan and Erskine, Mirabeauand Vergniaud, Patrick Henry and Daniel Webster. 

Mr. Webster was of course essentially modern in his oratory. He reliedchiefly on the sustained appeal to the understanding, and he was aconspicuous example of the prophetic character which Christianity, andProtestantism especially, has given to modern eloquence. At the same timeMr. Webster was in some respects more classical, and resembled more closelythe models of antiquity, than any of those who have been mentioned asbelonging to the same high class. He was wont to pour forth the copiousstream of plain, intelligible observations, and indulge in the variedappeals to feeling, memory, and interest, which Lord Brougham sets down ascharacteristic of ancient oratory. It has been said that while Demostheneswas a sculptor, Burke was a painter. Mr. Webster was distinctly more of theformer than the latter. He rarely amplified or developed an image or adescription, and in this he followed the Greek rather than the Englishman. Dr. Francis Lieber wrote: "To test Webster's oratory, which has ever beenvery attractive to me, I read a portion of my favorite speeches ofDemosthenes, and then read, always aloud, parts of Webster; then returnedto the Athenian; and Webster stood the test. " Apart from the greatcompliment which this conveys, such a comparison is very interesting asshowing the similarity between Mr. Webster and the Greek orator. Not onlydoes the test indicate the merit of Mr. Webster's speeches, but it alsoproves that he resembled the Athenian, and that the likeness was morestriking than the inevitable difference born of race and time. Yet thereis no indication that Webster ever made a study of the ancient models ortried to form himself upon them. 

The cause of the classic self-restraint in Webster was partly due to theartistic sense which made him so devoted to simplicity of diction, andpartly to the cast of his mind. He had a powerful historic imagination, butnot in the least the imagination of the poet, which

 "Bodies forth the forms of things unknown. "

He could describe with great vividness, brevity, and force what hadhappened in the past, what actually existed, or what the future promised. But his fancy never ran away with him or carried him captive into theregions of poetry. Imagination of this sort is readily curbed andcontrolled, and, if less brilliant, is safer than that defined byShakespeare. For this reason, Mr. Webster rarely indulged in long, descriptive passages, and, while he showed the highest power in treatinganything with a touch of humanity about it, he was sparing of images drawnwholly from nature, and was not peculiarly successful in depicting in wordsnatural scenery or phenomena. The result is, that in his highest flights, while he is often grand and affecting, full of life and power, he nevershows the creative imagination. But if he falls short on the poetic side, there is the counterbalancing advantage that there is never a false notenor an overwrought description which offends our taste and jars upon oursensibilities. 

Mr. Webster showed his love of direct simplicity in his style even morethan in his thought or the general arrangement and composition of hisspeeches. His sentences are, as a rule, short, and therefore pointed andintelligible, but they never become monotonous and harsh, the fault towhich brevity is always liable. On the contrary, they are smooth andflowing, and there is always a sufficient variety of form. The choice oflanguage is likewise simple. Mr. Webster was a remorseless critic of hisown style, and he had an almost extreme preference for Anglo-Saxon wordsand a corresponding dislike of Latin derivatives. The only exception hemade was in his habit of using "commence" instead of its far superiorsynonym "begin. " His style was vigorous, clear, and direct in the highestdegree, and at the same time warm and full of vitality. He displayed thatrare union of strength with perfect simplicity, the qualities which madeSwift the great master of pure and forcible English. 

Charles Fox is credited with saying that a good speech never reads well. This opinion, taken in the sense in which it was intended, that acarefully-prepared speech, which reads like an essay, lacks the freshnessand glow that should characterize the oratory of debate, is undoubtedlycorrect. But it is equally true that when a speech which we know to havebeen good in delivery is equally good in print, a higher intellectual planeis reached and a higher level of excellence is attained than is possible toeither the mere essay or to the effective retort or argument, which losesits flavor with the occasion which draws it forth. Mr. Webster's speecheson the tariff, on the bank, and on like subjects, able as they are, arenecessarily dry, but his speeches on nobler themes are admirable reading. This is, of course, due to the variety and ease of treatment, to theirpower, and to the purity of the style. At the same time, the immediateeffect of what he said was immense, greater, even, than the intrinsic meritof the speech itself. There has been much discussion as to the amount ofpreparation which Mr. Webster made. His occasional orations were, ofcourse, carefully written out beforehand, a practice which was entirelyproper; but in his great parliamentary speeches, and often in legalarguments as well, he made but slight preparation in the ordinary sense ofthe term. The notes for the two speeches on Foote's resolution were jotteddown on a few sheets of note-paper. The delivery of the second one, hismasterpiece, was practically extemporaneous, and yet it fills seventyoctavo pages and occupied four hours. He is reported to have said that hiswhole life had been a preparation for the reply to Hayne. Whether he saidit or not, the statement is perfectly true. The thoughts on the Union andon the grandeur of American nationality had been garnered up for years, andthis in a greater or less degree was true of all his finest efforts. Thepreparation on paper was trifling, but the mental preparation extendingover weeks or days, sometimes, perhaps, over years, was elaborate to thelast point. When the moment came, a night's work would put all thestored-up thoughts in order, and on the next day they would pour forth withall the power of a strong mind thoroughly saturated with its subject, andyet with the vitality of unpremeditated expression, having the fresh glowof morning upon it, and with no trace of the lamp. 

More than all this, however, in the immediate effect of Mr. Webster'sspeeches was the physical influence of the man himself. We can but halfunderstand his eloquence and its influence if we do not carefully study hisphysical attributes, his temperament and disposition. In face, form, andvoice, nature did her utmost for Daniel Webster. No envious fairy waspresent at his birth to mar these gifts by her malign influence. He seemedto every one to be a giant; that, at least, is the word we most commonlyfind applied to him, and there is no better proof of his enormous physicalimpressiveness than this well-known fact, for Mr. Webster was not a man ofextraordinary stature. He was five feet ten inches in height, and, inhealth, weighed a little less than two hundred pounds. These are theproportions of a large man, but there is nothing remarkable about them. Wemust look elsewhere than to mere size to discover why men spoke of Websteras a giant. He had a swarthy complexion and straight black hair. His headwas very large, the brain weighing, as is well known, more than any onrecord, except those of Cuvier and of the celebrated bricklayer. At thesame time his head was of noble shape, with a broad and lofty brow, and hisfeatures were finely cut and full of massive strength. His eyes wereextraordinary. They were very dark and deep-set, and, when he began torouse himself to action, shone with the deep light of a forge-fire, gettingever more glowing as excitement rose. His voice was in harmony with hisappearance. It was low and musical in conversation; in debate it was highbut full, ringing out in moments of excitement like a clarion, and thensinking to deep notes with the solemn richness of organ-tones, while thewords were accompanied by a manner in which grace and dignity mingled incomplete accord. The impression which he produced upon the eye and ear itis difficult to express. There is no man in all history who came into theworld so equipped physically for speech. In this direction nature could dono more. The mere look of the man and the sound of his voice made all whosaw and heard him feel that he must be the embodiment of wisdom, dignity, and strength, divinely eloquent, even if he sat in dreamy silence oruttered nothing but heavy commonplaces. 

It is commonly said that no one of the many pictures of Mr. Webster gives atrue idea of what he was. We can readily believe this when we read thedescriptions which have come down to us. That indefinable quality which wecall personal magnetism, the power of impressing by one's personality everyhuman being who comes near, was at its height in Mr. Webster. He never, forinstance, punished his children, but when they did wrong he would send forthem and look at them silently. The look, whether of anger or sorrow, waspunishment and rebuke enough. It was the same with other children. Thelittle daughter of Mr. Wirt once came into a room where Mr. Webster wassitting with his back toward her, and touched him on the arm. He turnedsuddenly, and the child started back with an affrighted cry at the sight ofthat dark, stern, melancholy face. But the cloud passed as swiftly as theshadows on a summer sea, and the next moment the look of affection andhumor brought the frightened child into Mr. Webster's arms, and they werefriends and playmates in an instant. 

The power of a look and of changing expression, so magical with a child, was hardly less so with men. There have been very few instances in historywhere there is such constant reference to merely physical attributes as inthe case of Mr. Webster. His general appearance and his eyes are the firstand last things alluded to in every contemporary description. Every one isfamiliar with the story of the English navvy who pointed at Mr. Webster inthe streets of Liverpool and said, "There goes a king. " Sidney Smithexclaimed when he saw him, "Good heavens, he is a small cathedral byhimself. " Carlyle, no lover of America, wrote to Emerson:--

 "Not many days ago I saw at breakfast the notablest of all your notabilities, Daniel Webster. He is a magnificent specimen. You might say to all the world, 'This is our Yankee Englishman; such limbs we make in Yankee land!' As a logic fencer, or parliamentary Hercules, one would incline to back him at first sight against all the extant world. The tanned complexion; that amorphous crag-like face; the dull black eyes under the precipice of brows, like dull anthracite furnaces needing only to be _blown_; the mastiff mouth accurately closed; I have not traced so much of _silent Berserkir rage_ that I remember of in any man. 'I guess I should not like to be your nigger!' Webster is not loquacious, but he is pertinent, conclusive; a dignified, perfectly bred man, though not English in breeding; a man worthy of the best reception among us, and meeting such I understand. "

Such was the effect produced by Mr. Webster when in England, and it was auniversal impression. Wherever he went men felt in the depths of theirbeing the amazing force of his personal presence. He could control anaudience by a look, and could extort applause from hostile listeners by amere glance. On one occasion, after the 7th of March speech, there is astory that a noted abolitionist leader was present in the crowd gathered tohear Mr. Webster, and this bitter opponent is reported to have saidafterwards, "When Webster, speaking of secession, asked 'what is to becomeof me, ' I was thrilled with a sense of some awful impending calamity. " Thestory may be apocryphal, but there can be no doubt of its essential truthso far as the effect of Mr. Webster's personal presence goes. People lookedat him, and that was enough. Mr. Parton in his essay speaks of seeingWebster at a public dinner, sitting at the head of the table with a bottleof Madeira under his yellow waistcoat, and looking like Jove. When hepresided at the Cooper memorial meeting in New York he uttered only a fewstately platitudes, and yet every one went away with the firm convictionthat they had heard him speak words of the profoundest wisdom and grandesteloquence. 

The temptation to rely on his marvellous physical gifts grew on him as hebecame older, which was to be expected with a man of his temperament. Evenin his early days, when he was not in action, he had an impassible andslumberous look; and when he sat listening to the invective of Hayne, noemotion could be traced on his cold, dark, melancholy face, or in thecavernous eyes shining with a dull light. This all vanished when he beganto speak, and, as he poured forth his strong, weighty sentences, there wasno lack of expression or of movement. But Mr. Webster, despite his capacityfor work, and his protracted and often intense labor, was constitutionallyindolent, and this sluggishness of temperament increased very much as hegrew older. It extended from the periods of repose to those of actionuntil, in his later years, a direct stimulus was needed to make him exerthimself. Even to the last the mighty power was still there in undiminishedstrength, but it was not willingly put forth. Sometimes the outside impulsewould not come; sometimes the most trivial incident would suffice, and likea spark on the train of gunpowder would bring a sudden burst of eloquence, electrifying all who listened. On one occasion he was arguing a case to thejury. He was talking in his heaviest and most ponderous fashion, and withhalf-closed eyes. The court and the jurymen were nearly asleep as Mr. Webster argued on, stating the law quite wrongly to his nodding listeners. The counsel on the other side interrupted him and called the attention ofthe court to Mr. Webster's presentation of the law. The judge, thusawakened, explained to the jury that the law was not as Mr. Webster statedit. While this colloquy was in progress Mr. Webster roused up, pushed backhis thick hair, shook himself, and glanced about him with the look of acaged lion. When the judge paused, he turned again to the jury, his eyes nolonger half shut but wide open and glowing with excitement. Raising hisvoice, he said, in tones which made every one start: "If my client couldrecover under the law as I stated it, how much more is he entitled torecover under the law as laid down by the court;" and then, the jury nowbeing thoroughly awake, he poured forth a flood of eloquent argument andwon his case. In his latter days Mr. Webster made many careless and dullspeeches and carried them through by the power of his look and manner, butthe time never came when, if fairly aroused, he failed to sway the heartsand understandings of men by a grand and splendid eloquence. The lion sleptvery often, but it never became safe to rouse him from his slumber. 

It was soon after the reply to Hayne that Mr. Webster made his greatargument for the government in the White murder case. One other address toa jury in the Goodridge case, and the defence of Judge Prescott before theMassachusetts Senate, which is of similar character, have been preserved tous. The speech for Prescott is a strong, dignified appeal to the sober, andyet sympathetic, judgment of his hearers, but wholly free from any attemptto confuse or mislead, or to sway the decision by unwholesome pathos. Underthe circumstances, which were very adverse to his client, the argument wasa model of its kind, and contains some very fine passages full of thesolemn force so characteristic of its author. The Goodridge speech ischiefly remarkable for the ease with which Mr. Webster unravelled acomplicated set of facts, demonstrated that the accuser was in reality theguilty party, and carried irresistible conviction to the minds of thejurors. It was connected with a remarkable exhibition of his power ofcross-examination, which was not only acute and penetrating, but extremelyterrifying to a recalcitrant witness. The argument in the White case, as aspecimen of eloquence, stands on far higher ground than either of the othertwo, and, apart from the nature of the subject, ranks with the very best ofMr. Webster's oratorical triumphs. The opening of the speech, comprisingthe account of the murder and the analysis of the workings of a mind searedwith the remembrance of a horrid crime, must be placed among the veryfinest masterpieces of modern oratory. The description of the feelings ofthe murderer has a touch of the creative power, but, taken in conjunctionwith the wonderful picture of the deed itself, the whole exhibits thehighest imaginative excellence, and displays the possession of anextraordinary dramatic force such as Mr. Webster rarely exerted. It has thesame power of exciting a kind of horror and of making us shudder with acreeping, nameless terror as the scene after the murder of Duncan, whenMacbeth rushes out from the chamber of death, crying, "I have done thedeed. Didst thou not hear a noise?" I have studied this famous exordiumwith extreme care, and I have sought diligently in the works of all thegreat modern orators, and of some of the ancient as well, for similarpassages of higher merit. My quest has been in vain. Mr. Webster'sdescription of the White murder, and of the ghastly haunting sense of guiltwhich pursued the assassin, has never been surpassed in dramatic force byany speaker, whether in debate or before a jury. Perhaps the mostcelebrated descriptive passage in the literature of modern eloquence is thepicture drawn by Burke of the descent of Hyder Ali upon the plains of theCarnatic, but even that certainly falls short of the opening of Webster'sspeech in simple force as well as in dramatic power. Burke depicted withall the ardor of his nature and with a wealth of color a great invasionwhich swept thousands to destruction. Webster's theme was a cold-bloodedmurder in a quiet New England town. Comparison between such topics, whenone is so infinitely larger than the other, seems at first sight almostimpossible. But Mr. Webster also dealt with the workings of the human heartunder the influence of the most terrible passions, and those have furnishedsufficient material for the genius of Shakespeare. The test of excellenceis in the treatment, and in this instance Mr. Webster has never beenexcelled. The effect of that exordium, delivered as he alone could havedelivered it, must have been appalling. He was accused of having beenbrought into the case to hurry the jury beyond the law and evidence, andhis whole speech was certainly calculated to drive any body of men, terror-stricken by his eloquence, wherever he wished them to go. Mr. Webster did not have that versatility and variety of eloquence which weassociate with the speakers who have produced the most startling effectupon that complex thing called a jury. He never showed that rapidalternation of wit, humor, pathos, invective, sublimity, and ingenuitywhich have been characteristic of the greatest advocates. Before a jury aseverywhere else he was direct and simple. He awed and terrified jurymen; heconvinced their reason; but he commanded rather than persuaded, and carriedthem with him by sheer force of eloquence and argument, and by hisoverpowering personality. 

The extravagant admiration which Mr. Webster excited among his followershas undoubtedly exaggerated his greatness in many respects; but, high asthe praise bestowed upon him as an orator has been, in that direction atleast he has certainly not been overestimated. The reverse rather is true. Mr. Webster was, of course, the greatest orator this country has everproduced. Patrick Henry's fame rests wholly on tradition. The same is trueof Hamilton, who, moreover, never had an opportunity adequate to histalents, which were unquestionably of the first order. Fisher Ames'sreputation was due to a single speech which is distinctly inferior to manyof Webster's. Clay's oratory has not stood the test of time; his speeches, which were so wonderfully effective when he uttered them, seem dead andcold and rather thin as we read them to-day. Calhoun was a great debater, but was too dry and hard for the highest eloquence. John Quincy Adams, despite his physical limitations, carried the eloquence of combat andbitter retort to the highest point in the splendid battles of hiscongressional career, but his learning, readiness, power of expression, argument, and scathing sarcasm were not rounded into a perfect whole by themore graceful attributes which also form an essential part of oratory. 

Mr. Webster need not fear comparison with any of his countrymen, and he hasno reason to shun it with the greatest masters of speech in England. He hadmuch of the grandeur of Chatham, with whom it is impossible to compare himor indeed any one else, for the Great Commoner lives only in fragments ofdoubtful accuracy. Sheridan was universally considered to have made themost splendid speech of his day. Yet the speech on the Begums as given byMoore does not cast Webster's best work at all into the shade. Webster didnot have Sheridan's brilliant wit, but on the other hand he was neverforced, never involved, never guilty of ornament, which fastidious judgeswould now pronounce tawdry. Webster's best speeches read much better thananything of Sheridan, and, so far as we can tell from careful descriptions, his manner, look, and delivery were far more imposing. The "manlyeloquence" of Fox seems to have resembled Webster's more closely than thatof any other of his English rivals. Fox was more fertile, more brilliant, more surprising than Webster, and had more quickness and dash, and agreater ease and charm of manner. But he was often careless, and sometimesfell into repetitions, from which, of course, no great speaker can bewholly free any more than he can keep entirely clear of commonplaces. Webster gained upon him by superior finish and by greater weight ofargument. Before a jury Webster fell behind Erskine as he did behindChoate, although neither of them ever produced anything at all comparableto the speech on the White murder; but in the Senate, and in the generalfield of oratory, he rises high above them both. The man with whom Websteris oftenest compared, and the last to be mentioned, is of course Burke. Itmay be conceded at once that in creative imagination, and in richness ofimagery and language, Burke ranks above Webster. But no one would ever havesaid of Webster as Goldsmith did of Burke:--

 "Who, too deep for his hearers, still went on refining, And thought of convincing while they thought of dining. "

Webster never sinned by over refinement or over ingenuity, for both wereutterly foreign to his nature. Still less did he impair his power in theSenate as Burke did in the Commons by talking too often and too much. If hedid not have the extreme beauty and grace of which Burke was capable, hewas more forcible and struck harder and more weighty blows. He was greatlyaided in this by his brief and measured periods, and his strength was neverwasted in long and elaborate sentences. Webster, moreover, would never havedegenerated into the ranting excitement which led Burke to draw a knifefrom his bosom and cast it on the floor of the House. This illustrates whatwas, perhaps, Mr. Webster's very strongest point, --his absolute good taste. He may have been ponderous at times in his later years. We know that he wasoccasionally heavy, pompous, and even dull, but he never violated the rulesof the nicest taste. Other men have been more versatile, possessed of aricher imagination, and more gorgeous style, with a more brilliant wit anda keener sarcasm, but there is not one who is so absolutely free fromfaults of taste as Webster, or who is so uniformly simple and pure inthought and style, even to the point of severity. [1]

[Footnote 1: A volume might be written comparing Mr. Webster with othergreat orators. Only the briefest and most rudimentary treatment of thesubject is possible here. A most excellent study of the comparativeexcellence of Webster's eloquence has been made by Judge Chamberlain, Librarian of the Boston Public Library, in a speech at the dinner of theDartmouth Alumni, which has since been printed as a pamphlet. ]

It is easy to compare Mr. Webster with this and the other great orator, and to select points of resemblance and of difference, and show where Mr. Webster was superior and where he fell behind. But the final verdict mustbe upon all his qualities taken together. He had the most extraordinaryphysical gifts of face, form, and voice, and employed them to the bestadvantage. Thus equipped, he delivered a long series of great speecheswhich can be read to-day with the deepest interest, instruction, andpleasure. He had dignity, grandeur, and force, a strong historicimagination, and great dramatic power when he chose to exert it. Hepossessed an unerring taste, a capacity for vigorous and telling sarcasm, aglow and fire none the less intense because they were subdued, perfectclearness of statement joined to the highest skill in argument, and he wasmaster of a style which was as forcible as it was simple and pure. Take himfor all in all, he was not only the greatest orator this country has everknown, but in the history of eloquence his name will stand with those ofDemosthenes and Cicero, of Chatham and Burke. 

CHAPTER VII. 

THE STRUGGLE WITH JACKSON AND THE RISE OF THE WHIG PARTY. 

In the year preceding the delivery of his great speech Mr. Webster had losthis brother Ezekiel by sudden death, and he had married for his second wifeMiss Leroy of New York. The former event was a terrible grief to him, andtaken in conjunction with the latter seemed to make a complete break withthe past, and with its struggles and privations, its joys and successes. The slender girl whom he had married in Salisbury church and the belovedbrother were both gone, and with them went those years of youth in which, --

 "He had sighed deep, laughed free, Starved, feasted, despaired, been happy. "

One cannot come to this dividing line in Mr. Webster's life without regret. There was enough of brilliant achievement and substantial success in whathad gone before to satisfy any man, and it had been honest, simple, andunaffected. A wider fame and a greater name lay before him, but with themcame also ugly scandals, bitter personal attacks, an ambition which warpedhis nature, and finally a terrible mistake. One feels inclined to say ofthese later years, with the Roman lover:--

 "Shut them in With their triumphs and their glories and the rest, Love is best. "

The home changed first, and then the public career. The reply which, asJohn Quincy Adams said, "utterly demolished the fabric of Hayne's speechand left scarcely a wreck to be seen, " went straight home to the people ofthe North. It gave eloquent expression to the strong but undefined feelingin the popular mind. It found its way into every house and was readeverywhere; it took its place in the school books, to be repeated by shrillboy voices, and became part of the literature and of the intellectual lifeof the country. In those solemn sentences men read the description of whatthe United States had come to be under the Constitution, and what Americannationality meant in 1830. The leaders of the young war party in 1812 werethe first to arouse the national sentiment, but no one struck the chordwith such a master hand as Mr. Webster, or drew forth such long and deepvibrations. There is no single utterance in our history which has done somuch by mere force of words to strengthen the love of nationality andimplant it deeply in the popular heart, as the reply to Hayne. 

Before the delivery of that speech Mr. Webster was a distinguishedstatesman, but the day after he awoke to a national fame which made all hisother triumphs pale. Such fame brought with it, of course, as it alwaysdoes in this country, talk of the presidency. The reply to Hayne made Mr. Webster a presidential candidate, and from that moment he was never freefrom the gnawing, haunting ambition to win the grand prize of Americanpublic life. There was a new force in his career, and in all the years tocome the influence of that force must be reckoned and remembered. 

Mr. Webster was anxious that the party of opposition to General Jackson, which then passed by the name of National Republicans, should be in someway strengthened, solidified, and placed on a broad platform of distinctprinciples. He saw with great regret the ruin which was threatened by theanti-masonic schism, and it would seem that he was not indisposed to takeadvantage of this to stop the nomination of Mr. Clay, who was peculiarlyobjectionable to the opponents of masonry. He earnestly desired thenomination himself, but even his own friends in the party told him thatthis was out of the question, and he acquiesced in their decision. Mr. Clay's personal popularity, moreover, among the National Republicans was, in truth, invincible, and he was unanimously nominated by the convention atBaltimore. The action of the anti-masonic element in the country doomedClay to defeat, which he was likely enough to encounter in any event; butthe consolidation of the party so ardently desired by Mr. Webster wasbrought about by acts of the administration, which completely overcame anyintestine divisions among its opponents. 

The session of 1831-1832, when the country was preparing for the comingpresidential election, marks the beginning of the fierce struggle withAndrew Jackson which was to give birth to a new and powerful organizationknown in our history as the Whig party, and destined, after years ofconflict, to bring overwhelming defeat to the "Jacksonian democracy. " Thereis no occasion here to enter into a history of the famous bank controversy. Established in 1816, the bank of the United States, after a period ofdifficulties, had become a powerful and valuable financial organization. In1832 it applied for a continuance of its charter, which then had threeyears still to run. Mr. Webster did not enter into the personal contestwhich had already begun, but in a speech of great ability advocated arenewal of the charter, showing, as he always did on such themes, aknowledge and a grasp of the principles and intricacies of public financeunequalled in our history except by Hamilton. In a second speech he made amost effective and powerful argument against a proposition to give theStates authority to tax the bank, defending the doctrines laid down byChief Justice Marshall in McCullough vs. Maryland, and denying the power ofCongress to give the States the right of such taxation, because by so doingthey violated the Constitution. The amendment was defeated, and the billfor the continuance of the charter passed both Houses by large majorities. 

Jackson returned the bill with a veto. He had the audacity to rest his vetoupon the ground that the bill was unconstitutional, and that it was theduty of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of every measurewithout feeling in the least bound by the opinion of Congress or of theSupreme Court. His ignorance was so crass that he failed to perceive thedistinction between a new bill and one to continue an existing law, whilehis vanity and his self-assumption were so colossal that he did nothesitate to assert that he had the right and the power to declare anexisting law, passed by Congress, approved by Madison, and held to beconstitutional by an express decision of the Supreme Court, to be invalid, because he thought fit to say so. To overthrow such doctrines was notdifficult, but Mr. Webster refuted them with a completeness and force whichwere irresistible. At the same time he avoided personal attack in thedignified way which was characteristic of him, despite the extraordinarytemptation to indulge in invective and telling sarcasm to which Jackson byhis ignorance and presumption had so exposed himself. The bill was lost, the great conflict with the bank was begun, and the Whig party was founded. 

Another event of a different character, which had occurred not long before, helped to widen the breach and to embitter the contest between the partiesof the administration and of the opposition. When in 1829 Mr. McLane hadreceived his instructions as Minister to England, he had been directed byMr. Van Buren to reopen negotiations on the subject of the West Indiantrade, and in so doing the Secretary of State had reflected on the previousadministration, and had said that the party in power would not support thepretensions of its predecessors. Such language was, of course, at variancewith all traditions, was wholly improper, and was mean and contemptible indealing with a foreign nation. In 1831 Mr. Van Buren was nominated asMinister to England, and came up for confirmation in the Senate some timeafter he had actually departed on his mission. Mr. Webster opposed theconfirmation in an eloquent speech full of just pride in his country and ofvigorous indignation against the slight which Mr. Van Buren had put uponher by his instructions to Mr. McLane. He pronounced a splendid "rebukeupon the first instance in which an American minister had been sent abroadas the representative of his party and not as the representative of hiscountry. " The opposition was successful, and Mr. Van Buren's nominationwas rejected. It is no doubt true that the rejection was a politicalmistake, and that, as was commonly said at the time, it created sympathyfor Mr. Van Buren and insured his succession to the presidency. Yet no onewould now think as well of Mr. Webster if, to avoid awakening popularsympathy and party enthusiasm in behalf of Mr. Van Buren, he had silentlyvoted for that gentleman's confirmation. To do so was to approve thedespicable tone adopted in the instructions to McLane. As a patrioticAmerican, above all as a man of intense national feelings, Mr. Webstercould not have done otherwise than resist with all the force of hiseloquence the confirmation of a man who had made such an undignified andunworthy exhibition of partisanship. Politically he may have been wrong, but morally he was wholly right, and his rebuke stands in our history as areproach which Mr. Van Buren's subsequent success can neither mitigate norimpair. 

There was another measure, however, which had a far different effect fromthose which tended to build up the opposition to Jackson and his followers. A movement was begun by Mr. Clay looking to a revision and reduction of thetariff, which finally resulted in a bill reducing duties on many articlesto a revenue standard, and leaving those on cotton and woollen goods andiron unchanged. In the debates which occurred during the passage of thisbill Mr. Webster took but little part, but they caused a furious outbreakon the part of the South Carolinians led by Hayne, and ended in theconfirmation of the protective policy. When Mr. Webster spoke at the NewYork dinner in 1831, he gave his hearers to understand very clearly thatthe nullification agitation was not at an end, and after the passage of thenew tariff bill he saw close at hand the danger which he had predicted. 

In November, 1832, South Carolina in convention passed her famous ordinancenullifying the revenue laws of the United States, and her Legislature, which assembled soon after, enacted laws to carry out the ordinance, andgave an open defiance to the Federal government. The country was filledwith excitement. It was known that Mr. Calhoun, having published a letterin defence of nullification, had resigned the vice-presidency, accepted thesenatorship of South Carolina, and was coming to the capital to advocatehis favorite doctrine. But the South Carolinians had made one triflingblunder. They had overlooked the President. Jackson was a Southerner and aDemocrat, but he was also the head of the nation, and determined tomaintain its integrity. On December 10, before Congress assembled, heissued his famous proclamation in which he took up rigorously the positionadopted by Mr. Webster in his reply to Hayne, and gave the SouthCarolinians to understand that he would not endure treason, but wouldenforce constitutional laws even though he should be compelled to usebayonets to do it. The Legislature of the recalcitrant State replied in anoffensive manner which only served to make Jackson angry. He, too, began tosay some pretty violent things, and, as he generally meant what he said, the gallant leaders of nullification and other worthy people grew veryuneasy. There can be no doubt that the outlook was very threatening, andthe nullifiers were extremely likely to be the first to suffer from theeffects of the impending storm. 

Mr. Webster was in New Jersey, on his way to Washington, when he firstreceived the proclamation, and at Philadelphia he met Mr. Clay, and from afriend of that gentleman received a copy of a bill which was to do awaywith the tariff by gradual reductions, prevent the imposition of anyfurther duties, and which at the same time declared against protection andin favor of a tariff for revenue only. This headlong plunge into concessionand compromise was not at all to Mr. Webster's taste. He was opposed to thescheme for economical reasons, but still more on the far higher ground thatthere was open resistance to laws of undoubted constitutionality, and untilthat resistance was crushed under foot any talk of compromise was a blow atthe national dignity and the national existence which ought not to betolerated for an instant. His own course was plain. He proposed to sustainthe administration, and when the national honor should be vindicated andall unconstitutional resistance ended, then would come the time forconcessions. Jackson was not slow in giving Mr. Webster something tosupport. At the opening of the session a message was sent to Congressasking that provision might be made to enable the President to enforce thelaws by means of the land and naval forces if necessary. The message wasreferred to a committee, who at once reported the celebrated "Force Bill, "which embodied the principles of the message and had the entire approval ofthe President. But Jackson's party broke, despite the attitude of theirchief, for many of them were from the South and could not bring themselvesto the point of accepting the "Force Bill. " The moment was critical, andthe administration turned to Mr. Webster and took him into their councils. On February 8 Mr. Webster rose, and, after explaining in a fashion which noone was likely to forget, that this was wholly an administration measure, he announced his intention, as an independent senator, of giving it hishearty and inflexible support. The combination thus effected wasoverwhelming. Mr. Calhoun was now thoroughly alarmed, and we can wellimagine that the threats of hanging, in which it was rumored that thePresident had indulged, began to have a good deal of practical significanceto a gentleman who, as Secretary of War, had been familiar with thecircumstances attending the deaths of Arbuthnot and Ambrister. At allevents, Mr. Calhoun lost no time in having an interview with Mr. Clay, andthe result was, that the latter, on February 11, announced that he should, on the following day, introduce a tariff bill, a measure of the same sorthaving already been started in the House. The bill as introduced did notinvolve such a complete surrender as that which Mr. Webster had seen inPhiladelphia, but it necessitated most extensive modifications and gave allthat South Carolina could reasonably demand. Mr. Clay advocated it in abrilliant speech, resting his defence on the ground that this was the onlyway to preserve the tariff, and that it was founded on the greatconstitutional doctrine of compromise. Mr. Webster opposed the billbriefly, and then introduced a series of resolutions combating the proposedmeasure on economical principles and on those of justice, and especiallyassailing the readiness to abandon the rightful powers of Congress andyield them up to any form of resistance. Before, however, he could speak insupport of his resolutions, the "Force Bill" came up, and Mr. Calhoun madehis celebrated argument in support of nullification. This Mr. Webster wasobliged to answer, and he replied with the great speech known in his worksas "The Constitution not a compact between sovereign States. " In a generalway the same criticism is applicable to this debate as to that with Hayne, but there were some important differences. Mr. Calhoun's argument wassuperior to that of his follower. It was dry and hard, but it was asplendid specimen of close and ingenious reasoning, and, as was to beexpected, the originator and master surpassed the imitator and pupil. Mr. Webster's speech, on the other hand, in respect to eloquence, was decidedlyinferior to the masterpiece of 1830. Mr. Curtis says, "Perhaps there is nospeech ever made by Mr. Webster that is so close in its reasoning, socompact, and so powerful. " To the first two qualities we can readilyassent, but that it was equally powerful may be doubted. So long as Mr. Webster confined himself to defending the Constitution as it actually wasand as what it had come to mean in point of fact, he was invincible. Justin proportion as he left this ground and attempted to argue on historicalpremises that it was a fundamental law, he weakened his position, for thehistorical facts were against him. In the reply to Hayne he touched butslightly on the historical, legal, and theoretical aspects of the case, andhe was overwhelming. In the reply to Calhoun he devoted his strengthchiefly to these topics, and, meeting his keen antagonist on the latter'sown chosen ground, he put himself at a disadvantage. In the actual presentand in the steady course of development, the facts were wholly with Mr. Webster. Whatever the people of the United States understood theConstitution to mean in 1789, there can be no question that a majority in1833 regarded it as a fundamental law, and not as a compact--an opinionwhich has now become universal. But it was quite another thing to arguethat what the Constitution had come to mean was what it meant when it wasadopted. The identity of meaning at these two periods was the propositionwhich Mr. Webster undertook to maintain, and he upheld it as well and asplausibly as the nature of the case admitted. His reasoning was close andvigorous; but he could not destroy the theory of the Constitution as heldby leaders and people in 1789, or reconcile the Virginia and Kentuckyresolutions or the Hartford Convention with the fundamental-law doctrines. Nevertheless, it would be an error to suppose that because the facts ofhistory were against Mr. Webster in these particulars, this able, ingenious, and elaborate argument was thrown away. It was a fittingsupplement and complement to the reply to Hayne. It reiterated the nationalprinciples, and furnished those whom the statement and demonstration of anexisting fact could not satisfy, with an immense magazine of lucidreasoning and plausible and effective arguments. The reply to Hayne gavemagnificent expression to the popular feeling, while that to Calhounsupplied the arguments which, after years of discussion, converted thatfeeling into a fixed opinion, and made it strong enough to carry the Norththrough four years of civil war. But in his final speech in this debate Mr. Webster came back to his original ground, and said, in conclusion, "Shallwe have a general government? Shall we continue the union of States under a_government_ instead of a league? This vital and all-important question thepeople will decide. " The vital question went to the great popular jury, andthey cast aside all historical premises and deductions, all legalsubtleties and refinements, and gave their verdict on the existing facts. The world knows what that verdict was, and will never forget that it waslargely due to the splendid eloquence of Daniel Webster when he defendedthe cause of nationality against the slave-holding separatists of SouthCarolina. 

While this great debate was in progress, and Mr. Webster and the faithfuladherents of Jackson were pushing the "Force Bill" to a vote, Mr. Clay wasmaking every effort to carry the compromise tariff. In spite of hisexertions, the Force Bill passed on February 20, but close behind came thetariff, which Mr. Webster opposed, on its final passage, in a vigorousspeech. There is no need to enter into his economical objections, but hemade his strongest stand against the policy of sacrificing great intereststo soothe South Carolina. Mr. Clay replied, but did not then press a vote, for, with that dexterous management which he had exhibited in 1820 and wasagain to display in 1850, he had succeeded in getting his tariff billcarried rapidly through the House, in order to obviate the objection thatall money bills must originate in the lower branch. The House bill passedthe Senate, Mr. Webster voting against it, and became law. There was nofurther need of the Force Bill. Clay, Calhoun, even the daring Jacksonultimately, were very glad to accept the easy escape offered by acompromise. South Carolina had in reality prevailed, although Mr. Clay hadsaved protection in a modified form. Her threats of nullification hadbrought the United States government to terms, and the doctrines of Calhounwent home to the people of the South with the glory of substantial victoryabout them, to breed and foster separatism and secession, and prepare theway for armed conflict with the nobler spirit of nationality which Mr. Webster had roused in the North. 

Speaking of Mr. Webster at this period, Mr. Benton says:--

 "He was the colossal figure on the political stage during that eventful time, and his labors, splendid in their day, survive for the benefit of distant posterity. ". .. "It was a splendid era in his life, both for his intellect and his patriotism. No longer the advocate of classes or interests, he appeared as the great defender of the Union, of the Constitution, of the country, and of the administration to which he was opposed. Released from the bonds of party and the narrow confines of class and corporation advocacy, his colossal intellect expanded to its full proportions in the field of patriotism, luminous with the fires of genius, and commanding the homage not of party but of country. His magnificent harangues touched Jackson in his deepest-seated and ruling feeling, love of country, and brought forth the response which always came from him when the country was in peril and a defender presented himself. He threw out the right hand of fellowship, treated Mr. Webster with marked distinction, commended him with public praise, and placed him on the roll of patriots. And the public mind took the belief that they were to act together in future, and that a cabinet appointment or a high mission would be the reward of his patriotic service. It was a crisis in the life of Mr. Webster. He stood in public opposition to Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun. With Mr. Clay he had a public outbreak in the Senate. He was cordial with Jackson. The mass of his party stood by him on the proclamation. He was at a point from which a new departure might be taken: one at which he could not stand still; from which there must be either advance or recoil. It was a case in which _will_ more than _intellect_ was to rule. He was above Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun in intellect, below them in will: and he was soon seen cooperating with them (Mr. Clay in the lead) in the great measure condemning President Jackson. "

This is of course the view of a Jacksonian leader, but it is none the lessfull of keen analysis and comprehension of Mr. Webster, and in somerespects embodies very well the conditions of the situation. Mr. Bentonnaturally did not see that an alliance with Jackson was utterly impossiblefor Mr. Webster, whose proper course was therefore much less simple than itappeared to the Senator from Missouri. There was in reality no commonground possible between Webster and Jackson except defence of the nationalintegrity. Mr. Webster was a great orator, a splendid advocate, a trainedstatesman and economist, a remarkable constitutional lawyer, and a man ofimmense dignity, not headstrong in temper and without peculiar force ofwill. Jackson, on the other hand, was a rude soldier, unlettered, intractable, arbitrary, with a violent temper and a most despotic will. Twomen more utterly incompatible it would have been difficult to find, andnothing could have been more wildly fantastic than to suppose an alliancebetween them, or to imagine that Mr. Webster could ever have done anythingbut oppose utterly those mad gyrations of personal government which thePresident called his "policy. "

Yet at the same time it is perfectly true that just after the passage ofthe tariff bill Mr. Webster was at a great crisis in his life. He could notact with Jackson. That way was shut to him by nature, if by nothing else. But he could have maintained his position as the independent and unbendingdefender of nationality and as the foe of compromise. He might then havebrought Mr. Clay to his side, and remained himself the undisputed head ofthe Whig party. The coalition between Clay and Calhoun was a hollow, ill-omened thing, certain to go violently to pieces, as, in fact, it did, within a few years, and then Mr. Clay, if he had held out so long, wouldhave been helpless without Mr. Webster. But such a course required a verystrong will and great tenacity of purpose, and it was on this side that Mr. Webster was weak, as Mr. Benton points out. Instead of waiting for Mr. Clayto come to him, Mr. Webster went over to Clay and Calhoun, and formed for atime the third in that ill-assorted partnership. There was no reason forhis doing so. In fact every good reason was against it. Mr. Clay had cometo Mr. Webster with his compromise, and had been met with the reply "thatit would be yielding great principles to faction; and that the time hadcome to test the strength of the Constitution and the government. " This wasa brave, manly answer, but Mr. Clay, nationalist as he was, had straightwaydeserted his friend and ally, and gone over to the separatists for support. Then a sharp contest had occurred between Mr. Webster and Mr. Clay in thedebate on the tariff; and when it was all over, the latter wrote with frankvanity and a slight tinge of contempt: "Mr. Webster and I came inconflict, and I have the satisfaction to tell you that he gained nothing. My friends flatter me with my having completely triumphed. There is nopermanent breach between us. I think he begins already to repent hiscourse. " Mr. Clay was intensely national, but his theory of preserving theUnion was by continual compromise, or, in other words, by constant yieldingto the aggressive South. Mr. Webster's plan was to maintain a firmattitude, enforce absolute submission to all constitutional laws, and provethat agitation against the Union could lead only to defeat. This policywould not have resulted in rebellion, but, if it had, the hanging ofCalhoun and a few like him, and the military government of South Carolina, by the hero of New Orleans, would have taught slave-holders such a lessonthat we should probably have been spared four years of civil war. Peacefulsubmission, however, would have been the sure outcome of Mr. Webster'spolicy. But a compromise appealed as it always does to the timid, balance-of-power party. Mr. Clay prevailed, and the manufacturers of NewEngland, as well as elsewhere, finding that he had secured for them thebenefit of time and of the chapter of accidents, rapidly came over to hissupport. The pressure was too much for Mr. Webster. Mr. Clay thought thatif Mr. Webster "had to go over the work of the last few weeks he would havebeen for the compromise, which commands the approbation of a greatmajority. " Whether Mr. Webster repented his opposition to the compromise noone can say, but the change of opinion in New England, the general assentof the Whig party, and the dazzling temptations of presidential candidacyprevailed with him. He fell in behind Mr. Clay, and remained there in aparty sense and as a party man for the rest of his life. 

The terrible prize of the presidency was indeed again before his eyes. Mr. Clay's overthrow at the previous election had removed him, for the timebeing at least, from the list of candidates, and thus freed Mr. Websterfrom his most dangerous rival. In the summer of 1833 Mr. Webster made atour through the Western States, and was received everywhere withenthusiasm, and hailed as the great expounder and defender of theConstitution. The following winter he stood forward as the preëminentchampion of the Bank against the President. Everything seemed to point tohim as the natural candidate of the opposition. The Legislature ofMassachusetts nominated him for the presidency, and he himself deeplydesired the office, for the fever now burned strongly within him. But themovement came to nothing. The anti-masonic schism still distracted theopposition. The Kentucky leaders were jealous of Mr. Webster, and thoughthim "no such man" as their idol Henry Clay. They admitted his greatness andhis high traits of character, but they thought his ambition mixed with toomuch self-love. Governor Letcher wrote to Mr. Crittenden in 1836 that Claywas more elevated, disinterested and patriotic than Webster, and that theverdict of the country had had a good effect on the latter. Despite theinterest and enthusiasm which Mr. Webster aroused in the West, he had noreal hold upon that section or upon the masses of the people and theWestern Whigs turned to Harrison. There was no hope in 1836 for Mr. Webster, or, for that matter, for his party either. He received theelectoral vote of faithful Massachusetts, and that was all. As it was then, so it had been at the previous election, and so it was to continue to be atthe end of every presidential term. There never was a moment when Mr. Webster had any real prospect of attaining to the presidency. Unfortunatelyhe never could realize this. He would have been more than human, perhaps, if he had done so. The tempting bait hung always before his eyes. The prizeseemed to be always just coming within his reach, and was really never nearit. But the longing had entered his soul. He could not rid himself of theidea of this final culmination to his success; and it warped his feelingsand actions, injured his career, and embittered his last years. 

This notice of the presidential election of 1836 has somewhat anticipatedthe course of events. Soon after the tariff compromise had been effected, Mr. Webster renewed his relations with Mr. Clay, and, consequently, withMr. Calhoun, and their redoutable antagonist in the President's chair soongave them enough to do. The most immediate obstacle to Mr. Webster'salliance with General Jackson was the latter's attitude in regard to thebank. Mr. Webster had become satisfied that the bank was, on the whole, auseful and even necessary institution. No one was better fitted than he todecide on such a question, and few persons would now be found to differfrom his judgment on this point. In a general way he may be said to haveadopted the Hamiltonian doctrine in regard to the expediency andconstitutionality of a national bank. There were intimations in the springof 1833 that the President, not content with preventing the re-charter ofthe bank, was planning to strike it down, and practically deprive it ofeven the three years of life which still remained to it by law. The schemewas perfected during the summer, and, after changing his Secretary of theTreasury until he got one who would obey, President Jackson dealt his greatblow. On September 26 Mr. Taney signed the order removing the deposits ofthe government from the Bank of the United States. The result was animmediate contraction of loans, commercial distress, and great confusion. 

The President had thrown down the gage, and the leaders of the oppositionwere not slow to take it up. Mr. Clay opened the battle by introducing tworesolutions, --one condemning the action of the President asunconstitutional, the other attacking the policy of removal, and a long andbitter debate ensued. A month later, Mr. Webster came forward withresolutions from Boston against the course of the President. He presentedthe resolutions in a powerful and effective speech, depicting thedeplorable condition of business, and the injury caused to the country bythe removal of the deposits. He rejected the idea of leaving the currencyto the control of the President, or of doing away entirely with paper, andadvocated the re-charter of the present bank, or the creation of a new one;and, until the time for that should arrive, the return of the deposits, with its consequent relief to business and a restoration of stability andof confidence for the time being at least. He soon found that theadministration had determined that no law should be passed, and that thedoctrine that Congress had no power to establish a bank should be upheld. He also discovered that the constitutional pundit in the White House, whowas so opposed to a single national bank, had created, by his own fiat, alarge number of small national banks in the guise of state banks, to whichthe public deposits were committed, and the collection of the publicrevenues intrusted. Such an arbitrary policy, at once so ignorant, illogical, and dangerous, aroused Mr. Webster thoroughly, and he enteredimmediately upon an active campaign against the President. Between thepresentation of the Boston resolutions and the close of the session hespoke on the bank, and the subjects necessarily connected with it, no lessthan sixty-four times. He dealt entirely with financial topics, --chieflythose relating to the currency, and with the constitutional questionsraised by the extension of the executive authority. This long series ofspeeches is one of the most remarkable exhibitions of intellectual powerever made by Mr. Webster, or indeed by any public man in our history. Indiscussing one subject in all its bearings, involving of necessity acertain amount of repetition, he not only displayed an extraordinary graspof complicated financial problems and a wide knowledge of their scientificmeaning and history, but he showed an astonishing fertility in argument, coupled with great variety and clearness of statement and cogency ofreasoning. With the exception of Hamilton, Mr. Webster is the onlystatesman in our history who was capable of such a performance on such asubject, when a thorough knowledge had to be united with all the resourcesof debate and all the arts of the highest eloquence. 

The most important speech of all was that delivered in answer to Jackson's"Protest, " sent in as a reply to Mr. Clay's resolutions which had beensustained by Mr. Webster as chairman of the Committee on Finance. The"Protest" asserted, in brief, that the Legislature could not order asubordinate officer to perform certain duties free from the control of thePresident; that the President had the right to put his own conception ofthe law into execution; and, if the subordinate officer refused to obey, then to remove such officer; and that the Senate had therefore no right tocensure his removal of the Secretary of the Treasury, in order to reach thegovernment deposits. To this doctrine Mr. Webster replied with greatelaboration and ability. The question was a very nice one. There could beno doubt of the President's power of removal, and it was necessary to showthat this power did not extend to the point of depriving Congress of theright to confer by law specified and independent powers upon an inferiorofficer, or of regulating the tenure of office. To establish thisproposition, in such a way as to take it out of the thick and heatedatmosphere of personal controversy, and put it in a shape to carryconviction to the popular understanding, was a delicate and difficult task, requiring, in the highest degree, lucidity and ingenuity of argument. It isnot too high praise to say that Mr. Webster succeeded entirely. The realcontest was for the possession of that debatable ground which lies betweenthe defined limits of the executive and legislative departments. Thestruggle consolidated and gave coherence to the Whig party as representingthe opposition to executive encroachments. At the time Jackson, by hisimperious will and marvellous personal popularity, prevailed and obtainedthe acceptance of his doctrines. But the conflict has gone on, and thebalance of advantage now rests with the Legislature. This tendency is quiteas dangerous as that of which Jackson was the exponent, if not more so. Theexecutive department has been crippled; and the influence and power ofCongress, and especially of the Senate, have become far greater than theyshould be, under the system of proportion and balance embodied in theConstitution. Despite Jackson's victory there is, to-day, far more dangerof undue encroachments on the part of the Senate than on that of thePresident. 

At the next session the principal subject of discussion was the troublewith France. Irritated at the neglect of the French government to providefunds for the payment of their debt to us, Jackson sent in a messageseverely criticising them, and recommending the passage of a lawauthorizing reprisals on French property. The President and his immediatefollowers were eager for war, Calhoun and his faction regarded the wholequestion as only matter for "an action of assumpsit, " while Mr. Webster andMr. Clay desired to avoid hostilities, but wished the country to maintain afirm and dignified attitude. Under the lead of Mr. Clay, the recommendationof reprisals was rejected, and under that of Mr. Webster a clause smuggledinto the Fortification Bill to give the President three millions to spendas he liked was struck out and the bill was subsequently lost. This affair, which brought us to the verge of war with France, soon blew over, however, and caused only a temporary ripple, although Mr. Webster's attack on theFortification Bill left a sting behind. 

In this same session Mr. Webster made an exhaustive speech on the questionof executive patronage and the President's power of appointment andremoval. He now went much farther than in his answer to the "Protest, "asserting not only the right of Congress to fix the tenure of office, butalso that the power of removal, like the power of appointment, was in thePresident and Senate jointly. The speech contained much that was valuable, but in its main doctrine was radically unsound. The construction of 1789, which decided that the power of removal belonged to the President alone, was clearly right, and Mr. Webster failed to overthrow it. His theory, embodied in a bill which provided that the President should state to theSenate, when he appointed to a vacancy caused by removal, his reasons forsuch removal, was thoroughly mischievous. It was more dangerous thanJackson's doctrine, for it tended to take the power of patronage still morefrom a single and responsible person and vest it in a large and thereforewholly irresponsible body which has always been too much inclined todegenerate into an office-broking oligarchy, and thus degrade its high andimportant functions. Mr. Webster argued his proposition with his usualforce and perspicuity, but the speech is strongly partisan and exhibits thedisposition of an advocate to fit the Constitution to his particular case, instead of dealing with it on general and fundamental principles. 

The session closed with a resolution offered by Mr. Benton to expunge theresolutions of censure upon the President, which was overwhelminglydefeated, and was then laid upon the table, on the motion of Mr. Webster. He also took the first step to prevent the impending financial disastergrowing out of the President's course toward the bank, by carrying a billto stop the payment of treasury warrants by the deposit banks in currentbanknotes, and to compel their payment in gold and silver. The rejection ofBenton's resolutions served to embitter the already intense conflictbetween the President and his antagonists, and Mr. Webster's bill, while itshowed the wisdom of the opposition, was powerless to remedy the mischiefwhich was afoot. 

In this same year (1835) the independence of Texas was achieved, and in thesession of 1835-36 the slavery agitation began its march, which was only toterminate on the field of battle and in the midst of contending armies. Mr. Webster's action at this time in regard to this great question, whichwas destined to have such an effect upon his career, can be more fitlynarrated when we come to consider his whole course in regard to slavery inconnection with the "7th of March" speech. The other matters of thissession demand but a brief notice. The President animadverted in hismessage upon the loss of the Fortification Bill, due to the defeat of thethree million clause. Mr. Webster defended himself most conclusively andeffectively, and before the session closed the difficulties with Francewere practically settled. He also gave great attention to the ever-pressingfinancial question, trying to mitigate the evils which the rapidaccumulation of the public funds was threatening to produce. He felt thathe was powerless, that nothing indeed could be done to avert theapproaching disaster; but he struggled to modify its effects and delay itsprogress. 

Complications increased rapidly during the summer. The famous "SpecieCircular, " issued by the Secretary of the Treasury without authority oflaw, weakened all banks which did not hold the government deposits, forcedthem to contract their loans, and completed the derangement of domesticexchange. This grave condition of affairs confronted Congress when itassembled in December, 1836. A resolution was introduced to rescind theSpecie Circular, and Mr. Webster spoke at length in the debate, definingthe constitutional duties of the government toward the regulation of thecurrency, and discussing in a masterly manner the intricate questions ofdomestic exchanges and the excessive circulation of bank notes. On anotheroccasion he reiterated his belief that a national bank was the true remedyfor existing ills, but that only hard experience could convince the countryof its necessity. 

At this session the resolution to expunge the vote of censure of 1833 wasagain brought forward by Mr. Benton. The Senate had at last come under thesway of the President, and it was clear that the resolution would pass. This precious scheme belongs to the same category of absurdities as theplacing Oliver Cromwell's skull on Temple Bar, and throwing Robert Blake'sbody on a dung-hill by Charles Stuart and his friends. It was not such amean and cowardly performance as that of the heroes of the Restoration, butit was far more "childish-foolish. " The miserable and ludicrous nature ofsuch a proceeding disgusted Mr. Webster beyond measure. Before the vote wastaken he made a brief speech that is a perfect model of dignified andsevere protest against a silly outrage upon the Constitution and upon therights of senators, which he was totally unable to prevent. The originalcensure is part of history. No "black lines" can take it out. The expungingresolution, which Mr. Curtis justly calls "fantastic and theatrical, " isalso part of history, and carries with it the ineffaceable stigma affixedby Mr. Webster's indignant protest. 

Before the close of the session Mr. Webster made up his mind to resign hisseat in the Senate. He had private interests which demanded his attention, and he wished to travel both in the United States and in Europe. He maywell have thought, also, that he could add nothing to his fame by remaininglonger in the Senate. But besides the natural craving for rest, it is quitepossible that he believed that a withdrawal from active and officialparticipation in politics was the best preparation for a successfulcandidacy for the presidency in 1840. This certainly was in his mind in thefollowing year (1838), when the rumor was abroad that he was againcontemplating retirement from the Senate; and it is highly probable thatthe same motive was at bottom the controlling one in 1837. But whatever thecause of his wish to resign, the opposition of his friends everywhere, andof the Legislature of Massachusetts, formally and strongly expressed, ledhim to forego his purpose. He consented to hold his seat for the present, at least, and in the summer of 1837 made an extended tour through the West, where he was received as before with the greatest admiration andenthusiasm. 

The distracted condition of the still inchoate Whig party in 1836, and theextraordinary popularity of Jackson, resulted in the complete victory ofMr. Van Buren. But the General's chosen successor and political heir foundthe great office to which he had been called, and which he so eagerlydesired, anything but a bed of roses. The ruin which Jackson's wild policyhad prepared was close at hand, and three months after the inauguration thestorm burst with full fury. The banks suspended specie payments anduniversal bankruptcy reigned throughout the country. Our business interestswere in the violent throes of the worst financial panic which had ever beenknown in the United States. The history of Mr. Van Buren's administration, in its main features, is that of a vain struggle with a hopeless network ofdifficulties, and with the misfortune and prostration which grew out ofthis wide-spread disaster. It is not necessary here to enter into thedetails of these events. Mr. Webster devoted himself in the Senate tomaking every effort to mitigate the evils which he had prophesied, and toprevent their aggravation by further injudicious legislation. His mostimportant speech was delivered at the special session against the firstsub-treasury bill and Mr. Calhoun's amendment. Mr. Calhoun, who had weptover the defeat of the bank bill in 1815, was now convinced that all bankswere mistakes, and wished to prevent the acceptance of the notes of speciepaying banks for government dues. Mr. Webster's speech was the fullest andmost elaborate he ever made on the subject of the currency, and therelations of the government to it. His theme was the duty and right of thegeneral government under the Constitution to regulate and control thecurrency, and his masterly argument was the best that has ever been made, leaving in fact nothing to be desired. 

In the spring of 1839 there was talk of sending Mr. Webster to London ascommissioner to settle the boundary disputes, but it came to nothing, andin the following summer he went to England in his private capacityaccompanied by his family. The visit was in every way successful. Itbrought rest and change as well as pleasure, and was full of interest. Mr. Webster was very well received, much attention was paid him, and muchadmiration shown for him. He commanded all this, not only by hisappearance, his reputation, and his intellectual force, but still more bythe fact that he was thoroughly and genuinely American in thought, feeling, and manner. 

He reached New York on his return at the end of December, and was there metby the news of General Harrison's nomination by the Whigs. In the previousyear it had seemed as if, with Clay out of the way by the defeat of 1832, and Harrison by that of 1836, the great prize must fall to Mr. Webster. Hisname was brought forward by the Whigs of Massachusetts, but it met with noresponse even in New England. It was the old story; Mr. Clay and hisfriends were cool, and the masses of the party did not desire Mr. Webster. The convention turned from the Massachusetts statesman and again nominatedthe old Western soldier. 

Mr. Webster did not hesitate as to the course he should pursue upon hisreturn. He had been reëlected to the Senate in January, 1839, and after thesession closed in July, 1840, he threw himself into the campaign in supportof Harrison. The people did not desire Mr. Webster to be their President, but there was no one whom they so much wished to hear. He was besieged fromall parts of the country with invitations to speak, and he answeredgenerously to the call thus made upon him. 

On his way home from Washington, in March, 1837, more than three yearsbefore, he had made a speech at Niblo's Garden in New York, --the greatestpurely political speech which he ever delivered. He then reviewed andarraigned with the greatest severity the history of Jackson'sadministration, abstaining in his characteristic way from all personalattack, but showing, as no one else could show, what had been done, and theresults of the policy, which were developing as he had predicted. He alsosaid that the worst was yet to come. The speech produced a profoundimpression. People were still reading it when the worst really came, andthe great panic broke over the country. Mr. Webster had, in fact, struckthe key-note of the coming campaign in the Niblo-Garden speech of 1837. Inthe summer of 1840 he spoke in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, andVirginia, and was almost continually upon the platform. The great feat of1833-34, when he made sixty-four speeches in the Senate on the bankquestion, was now repeated under much more difficult conditions. In thefirst instance he was addressing a small and select body of trainedlisteners, all more or less familiar with the subject. In 1840 he wasobliged to present these same topics, with all their infinite detail andinherent dryness, to vast popular audiences, but nevertheless he achieved amarvellous success. The chief points which he brought out were thecondition of the currency, the need of government regulation, theresponsibility of the Democrats, the miserable condition of the country, and the exact fulfillment of the prophecies he had made. The argument andthe conclusion were alike irresistible, but Mr. Webster showed, in handlinghis subject, not only the variety, richness, and force which he haddisplayed in the Senate, but the capacity of presenting it in a waythoroughly adapted to the popular mind, and yet, at the same time, ofpreserving the impressive tone of a dignified statesman, without anydegeneration into mere stump oratory. This wonderful series of speechesproduced the greatest possible effect. They were heard by thousands andread by tens of thousands. They fell, of course, upon willing ears. Thepeople, smarting under bankruptcy, poverty, and business depression, werewild for a change; but nothing did so much to swell the volume of publicresentment against the policy of the ruling party as these speeches of Mr. Webster, which gave character and form to the whole movement. Jackson hadsown the wind, and his unlucky successor was engaged in the agreeable taskof reaping the proverbial crop. There was a political revolution. The Whigsswept the country by an immense majority, the great Democratic party wascrushed to the earth, and the ignorant misgovernment of Andrew Jacksonfound at last its fit reward. General Harrison, as soon as he was elected, turned to the two great chiefs of his party to invite them to become thepillars of his administration. Mr. Clay declined any cabinet office, butMr. Webster, after some hesitation, accepted the secretaryship of state. Heresigned his seat in the Senate February 22, 1841, and on March 4 followingtook his place in the cabinet, and entered upon a new field of publicservice. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

SECRETARY OF STATE. --THE ASHBURTON TREATY. 

There is one feature in the history, or rather in the historic scenery ofthis period, which we are apt to overlook. The political questions, thedebates, the eloquence of that day, give us no idea of the city in whichthe history was made, or of the life led by the men who figured in thathistory. Their speeches might have been delivered in any great centre ofcivilization, and in the midst of a brilliant and luxurious society. Butthe Washington of 1841, when Mr. Webster took the post which is officiallythe first in the society of the capital and of the country, was a very oddsort of place, and widely different from what it is to-day. It was not avillage, neither was it a city. It had not grown, but had been created fora special purpose. A site had been arbitrarily selected, and a city laidout on the most magnificent scale. But there was no independent life, forthe city was wholly official in its purposes and its existence. There werea few great public buildings, a few large private houses, a few hotels andboarding houses, and a large number of negro shanties. The general effectwas of attempted splendor, which had resulted in slovenliness andstraggling confusion. The streets were unpaved, dusty in summer, and deepwith mud in winter, so that the mere difficulty of getting from place toplace was a serious obstacle to general society. Cattle fed in the streets, and were milked by their owners on the sidewalk. There was a grotesquecontrast between the stately capitol where momentous questions wereeloquently discussed and such queerly primitive and rude surroundings. Fewpersons were able to entertain because few persons had suitable houses. Members of Congress usually clubbed together and took possession of ahouse, and these "messes, " as they were called, --although without doubtvery agreeable to their members, --did not offer a mode of life which waseasily compatible with the demands of general society. Social enjoyments, therefore, were pursued under difficulties; and the city, althoughimproving, was dreary enough. 

Society, too, was in a bad condition. The old forms and ceremonies of themen of 1789 and the manners and breeding of our earliest generation ofstatesmen had passed away, and the new democracy had not as yet a system ofits own. It was a period of transition. The old customs had gone, the newones had not crystallized. The civilization was crude and raw, and inWashington had no background whatever, --such as was to be found in the oldcities and towns of the original thirteen States. The tone of the men inpublic life had deteriorated and was growing worse, approaching rapidly itslowest point, which it reached during the Polk administration. This was duepartly to the Jacksonian democracy, which had rejected training andeducation as necessary to statesmanship, and had loudly proclaimed thegreat truths of rotation in office, and the spoils to the victors, andpartly to the slavery agitation which was then beginning to make itselffelt. The rise of the irrepressible conflict between freedom and slaverymade the South overbearing and truculent; it produced that class ofpoliticians known as "Northern men with Southern principles, " or, in theslang of the day, as "doughfaces;" and it had not yet built up a strong, vigorous, and aggressive party in the North. The lack of proper socialopportunities, and this deterioration among men in public life, led to anincreasing violence and roughness in debate, and to a good deal of coarsedissipation in private. There was undoubtedly a brighter side, but it waslimited, and the surroundings of the distinguished men who led ourpolitical parties in 1841 at the national capital, do not present a verycheerful or attractive picture. 

When the new President appeared upon the scene he was followed by a generalrush of hungry office-seekers, who had been starving for places for manyyears. General Harrison was a brave, honest soldier and pioneer, simple inheart and manners, unspoiled and untaught by politics of which he had had agood share. He was not a great man, but he was honorable and wellintentioned. He wished to have about him the best and ablest men of hisparty, and to trust to their guidance for a successful administration. Butalthough he had no desire to invent a policy, or to draft state papers, hewas determined to be the author of his own inaugural speech, and he came toWashington with a carefully-prepared manuscript in his pocket. When Mr. Webster read this document he found it full of gratitude to the people, andabounding in allusions to Roman history. With his strong sense of humor, and of the unities and proprieties as well, he was a good deal alarmed atthe proposed speech; and after much labor, and the expenditure of a gooddeal of tact, he succeeded in effecting some important changes andadditions. When he came home in the evening, Mrs. Seaton, at whose house hewas staying, remarked that he looked worried and fatigued, and asked ifanything had happened. Mr. Webster replied, "You would think that somethinghad happened if you knew what I have done. I have killed seventeen Romanproconsuls. " It was a terrible slaughter for poor Harrison, for theproconsuls were probably very dear to his heart. His youth had been passedin the time when the pseudo classicism of the French Republic and Empirewas rampant, and now that, in his old age, he had been raised to thepresidency, his head was probably full of the republics of antiquity, andof Cincinnatus called from the plough, to take the helm of state. 

M. De Bacourt, the French minister at this period, a rather shallow andilliberal man who disliked Mr. Webster, gives, in his recently publishedcorrespondence, the following amusing account of the presentation of thediplomatic corps to President Harrison, --a little bit of contemporarygossip which carries us back to those days better than anything else couldpossibly do. The diplomatic corps assembled at the house of Mr. Fox, theBritish minister, who was to read a speech in behalf of the whole body, andthence proceeded to the White House where

 "the new Secretary of State, Mr. Webster, who is much embarrassed by his new functions, came to make his arrangements with Mr. Fox. This done, we were ranged along the wall in order of seniority, and after too long a delay for a country where the chief magistrate has no right to keep people waiting, the old General came in, followed by all the members of his Cabinet, who walked in single file, and so kept behind him. He then advanced toward Mr. Fox, whom Mr. Webster presented to him. Mr. Fox read to him his address. Then the President took out his spectacles and read his reply. Then, after having shaken hands with the English minister, he walked from one end of our line to the other, Mr. Webster presenting each of us by name, and he shaking hands with each one without saying a word. This ceremony finished he returned to the room whence he had come, and reappeared with Mrs. Harrison--the widow of his eldest son--upon his arm, whom he presented to the diplomatic corps _en masse_. Mr. Webster, who followed, then presented to us Mrs. Finley, the mother of this Mrs. Harrison, in the following terms: 'Gentlemen, I introduce to you Mrs. Finley, the lady who attends Mrs. Harrison;' and observe that this good lady who attends the others--takes care of them--is blind. Then all at once, a crowd of people rushed into the room. They were the wives, sisters, daughters, cousins, and lady friends of the President and of all his ministers, who were presented to us, and _vice versa_, in the midst of an inconceivable confusion. "

Fond, however, as Mr. Webster was of society, and punctilious as he was inmatters of etiquette and propriety, M. De Bacourt to the contrarynotwithstanding, he had far more important duties to perform than those ofplaying host and receiving foreign ministers. Our relations with Englandwhen he entered the cabinet were such as to make war seem almostinevitable. The northeastern boundary, undetermined by the treaty of 1783, had been the subject of continual and fruitless negotiation ever since thattime, and was still unsettled and more complicated than ever. It was agreedthat there should be a new survey and a new arbitration, but no agreementcould be reached as to who should arbitrate or what questions should besubmitted to the arbitrators, and the temporary arrangements for thepossession of the territory in dispute were unsatisfactory and precarious. Much more exciting and perilous than this old difficulty was a new one andits consequences growing out of the Canadian rebellion in 1837. Certain ofthe rebels fled to the United States, and there, in conjunction withAmerican citizens, prepared to make incursions into Canada. For thispurpose they fitted out an American steamboat, the Caroline. An expeditionfrom Canada crossed the Niagara River to the American shore, set fire tothe Caroline, and let her drift over the Falls. In the fray which occurred, an American named Durfree was killed. The British government avowed thisinvasion to be a public act and a necessary measure of self-defence; but itwas a question when Mr. Van Buren went out of office whether this avowalhad been made in an authentic manner. There was another incident, however, also growing out of this affair, even more irritating and threatening thanthe invasion itself. In November, 1840, one Alexander McLeod came fromCanada to New York, where he boasted that he was the slayer of Durfree, andthereupon was at once arrested on a charge of murder and thrown intoprison. This aroused great anger in England, and the conviction of McLeodwas all that was needed to cause immediate war. In addition to thesecomplications was the question of the right of search for the impressmentof British seamen and for the suppression of the slave-trade. Ourgovernment was, of course, greatly hampered in action by the rights ofMaine and Massachusetts on the northeastern boundary, and by the fact thatMcLeod was within the jurisdiction and in the power of the New York courts, and wholly out of reach of those of the United States. The character of thenational representatives on both sides in London tended, moreover, toaggravate the growing irritation between the two countries. Lord Palmerstonwas sharp and domineering, and Mr. Stevenson, our minister, was by no meansmild or conciliatory. Between them they did what they could to renderaccommodation impossible. 

To evolve a satisfactory and permanent peace from these conditions was thetask which confronted Mr. Webster, and he was hardly in office before hereceived a demand from Mr. Fox for the release of McLeod, in which fullavowal was made that the burning of the Caroline was a public act. Mr. Webster determined that the proper method of settling the boundaryquestion, when that subject should be reached, was to agree upon aconventional and arbitrary line, and that in the mean time the only way todispose of McLeod was to get him out of prison, separate him, diplomatically speaking, from the affair of the Caroline, and then takethat up as a distinct matter for negotiation with the British government. The difficulty in regard to McLeod was the most pressing, and so to that hegave his immediate attention. His first step was to instruct theAttorney-General to proceed to Lockport, where McLeod was imprisoned, andcommunicate with the counsel for the defence, furnishing them withauthentic information that the destruction of the Caroline was a publicact, and that therefore McLeod could not be held responsible. He thenreplied to the British minister that McLeod could, of course, be releasedonly by judicial process, but he also informed Mr. Fox of the steps whichhad been taken by the administration to assure the prisoner a completedefence based on the avowal of the British government that the attack onthe Caroline was a public act. This threw the responsibility for McLeod, and for consequent peace or war, where it belonged, on the New Yorkauthorities, who seemed, however, but little inclined to assist the generalgovernment. McLeod came before the Supreme Court of New York in July, on awrit of _habeas corpus_, but they refused to release him on the grounds setforth in Mr. Webster's instructions to the Attorney-General, and he wasremanded for trial in October, which was highly embarrassing to ourgovernment, as it kept this dangerous affair open. 

But this and all other embarrassments to the Secretary of State sank intoinsignificance beside those caused him by the troubles in his own politicalparty. Between the time of the instructions to the Attorney-General andthat of the letter to Mr. Fox, President Harrison died, after only a monthof office. Mr. Tyler, of whose views but little was known, at oncesucceeded, and made no change in the cabinet of his predecessor. On thelast day of May, Congress, called in extra session by President Harrison, convened. A bill establishing a bank was passed, and Mr. Tyler vetoed it onaccount of constitutional objections to some of its features. Thetriumphant Whigs were filled with wrath at this unlooked-for check. Mr. Clay reflected on the President with great severity in the Senate, themembers of the party in the House were very violent in their expressions ofdisapproval, and another measure, known as the "Fiscal Corporation Act, "was at once prepared. Mr. Webster regarded this state of affairs with greatanxiety and alarm. He said that such a contest, if persisted in, would ruinthe party and deprive them of the fruits of their victory, besidesimperilling the important foreign policy then just initiated. He strove toallay the excitement, and resisted the passage of any new bank measure, much as he wished the establishment of such an institution, advisingpostponement and delay for the sake of procuring harmony if possible. Butthe party in Congress would not be quieted. They were determined to forceMr. Tyler's hand at all hazards, and while the new bill was pending, Mr. Clay, stung by the taunts of Mr. Buchanan, made a savage attack upon thePresident. As a natural consequence, the "Fiscal Corporation" scheme sharedthe fate of its predecessor. The breach between the President and his partywas opened irreparably, and four members of the cabinet at once resigned. Mr. Webster was averse to becoming a party to an obvious combinationbetween the Senate and the cabinet to harass the President, and he wasdetermined not to sacrifice the success of his foreign negotiations to apolitical quarrel. He therefore resolved to remain in the cabinet for thepresent, at least, and, after consulting the Massachusetts delegation inCongress, who fully approved his course, he announced his decision to thepublic in a letter to the "National Intelligencer. " His action soon becamethe subject of much adverse criticism from the Whigs, but at this day noone would question that he was entirely right. It was not such an easything to do, however, as it now appears, for the excitement was runninghigh among the Whigs, and there was great bitterness of feeling toward thePresident. Mr. Webster behaved in an independent and patriotic manner, showing a liberality of spirit, a breadth of view, and a courage of opinionwhich entitle him to the greatest credit. 

Events, which had seemed thus far to go steadily against him in hisnegotiations, and which had been supplemented by the attacks of theopposition in Congress for his alleged interference with the course ofjustice in New York, now began to turn in his favor. The news of therefusal of the New York court to release McLeod on a _habeas corpus_ hadhardly reached England when the Melbourne ministry was beaten in the Houseof Commons, and Sir Robert Peel came in, bringing with him Lord Aberdeen asthe successor of Lord Palmerston in the department of foreign affairs. Thenew ministry was disposed to be much more peaceful than their predecessorshad been, and the negotiations at once began to move more smoothly. Greatcare was still necessary to prevent outbreaks on the border, but in OctoberMcLeod proved an _alibi_ and was acquitted, and thus the most dangerouselement in our relations with England was removed. Matters were stillfurther improved by the retirement of Mr. Stevenson, whose successor inLondon was Mr. Everett, eminently conciliatory in disposition and in fullsympathy with the Secretary of State. 

Mr. Webster was now able to turn his undivided attention to thelong-standing boundary question. His proposition to agree upon aconventional line had been made known by Mr. Fox to his government, andsoon afterwards Mr. Everett was informed that Lord Ashburton would be sentto Washington on a special mission. The selection of an envoy well knownfor his friendly feeling toward the United States, which was alsotraditional with the great banking-house of his family, was in itself apledge of conciliation and good will. Lord Ashburton reached Washington inApril, 1842, and the negotiation at once began. 

It is impossible and needless to give here a detailed account of thatnegotiation. We can only glance briefly at the steps taken by Mr. Websterand at the results achieved by him. There were many difficulties to beovercome, and in the winter of 1841-42 the case of the Creole added a freshand dangerous complication. The Creole was a slave-ship, on which thenegroes had risen, and, taking possession, had carried her into an Englishport in the West Indies, where assistance was refused to the crew, andwhere the slaves were allowed to go free. This was an act of very doubtfullegality, it touched both England and the Southern States in a verysensitive point, and it required all Mr. Webster's tact and judgment tokeep it out of the negotiation until the main issue had been settled. 

The principal obstacle in the arrangement of the boundary dispute arosefrom the interests and the attitude of Massachusetts and Maine. Mr. Websterobtained with sufficient ease the appointment of commissioners from theformer State, and, through the agency of Mr. Sparks, who was sent toAugusta for the purpose, commissioners were also appointed in Maine; butthese last were instructed to adhere to the line of 1783 as claimed by theUnited States. Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster readily agreed that a treatymust come from mutual conciliation and compromise; but, after a good dealof correspondence, it became apparent that the Maine commissioners and theEnglish envoy could not be brought to an agreement. A dead-lock andconsequent loss of the treaty were imminent. Mr. Webster then had a longinterview with Lord Ashburton. By a process of give and take they agreed ona conventional line and on the concession of certain rights, which made afair bargain, but unluckily the loss was suffered by Maine andMassachusetts, while the benefits received by the United States accrued toNew York, Vermont, and New Hampshire. This brought the negotiators to thepoint at which they had already been forced to halt so many times before. Mr. Webster now cut the knot by proposing that the United States shouldindemnify Maine and Massachusetts in money for the loss they were to sufferin territory, and by his dexterous management the commissioners of the twoStates were persuaded to assent to this arrangement, while Lord Ashburtonwas induced to admit the agreement into a clause of the treaty. Thisdisposed of the chief question in dispute, but two other subjects wereincluded in the treaty besides the boundary. The first related to theright of search claimed by England for the suppression of the slave-trade. This was met by what was called the "Cruising Convention, " a clause whichstipulated that each nation should keep its own squadron on the coast ofAfrica, to enforce separately its own laws against the slave-trade, but inmutual coöperation. The other subject of agreement grew out of the Creolecase. England supposed that we sought the return of the negroes becausethey were slaves, but Mr. Webster argued that they were demanded asmutineers and murderers. The result was an article which, while itcarefully avoided even the appearance of an attempt to bind England toreturn fugitive slaves, provided amply for the extradition of criminals. The case of the Caroline was disposed of by a formal admission of theinviolability of national territory and by an apology for the burning ofthe steamboat. As to the action in regard to the slaves on the Creole, Mr. Webster could only obtain the assurance that there should be "no officiousinterference with American vessels driven by accident or violence intoBritish ports, " and with this he was content to let the matter drop. On thesubject of impressment, the old _casus belli_ of 1812, Mr. Webster wrote aforcible letter to Lord Ashburton. In it he said that, in future, "in everyregularly-documented American merchant vessel, the crew who navigate itwill find their protection in the flag which is over them. " In other words, if you take sailors out of our vessels, we shall fight; and this simplestatement of fact ended the whole matter and was quite as binding onEngland as any treaty could have been. 

Thus the negotiation closed. The only serious objection to its results wasthat the interests of Maine were sacrificed perhaps unduly, --as a recentdiscussion of that point seems to show. But such a sacrifice was fullyjustified by what was achieved. A war was averted, a long standing andmenacing dispute was settled, and a treaty was concluded which wascreditable and honorable to all concerned. By his successful introductionof the extradition clause, Mr. Webster rendered a great service tocivilization and to the suppression and punishment of crime. Mr. Websterwas greatly aided throughout--both in his arguments, and in theconstruction of the treaty itself--by the learned and valuable assistancefreely given by Judge Story. But he conducted the whole negotiation withgreat ability and in the spirit of a liberal and enlightened statesman. Hedisplayed the highest tact and dexterity in reconciling so many clashinginterests, and avoiding so many perilous side issues, until he had broughtthe main problem to a solution. In all that he did and said he showed adignity and an entire sufficiency, which make this negotiation one of themost creditable--so far as its conduct was concerned--in which the UnitedStates was ever engaged. 

While the negotiation was in progress there was a constant murmur among theWhigs about Mr. Webster's remaining in the cabinet, and as soon as thetreaty was actually signed a loud clamor began--both among the politiciansand in the newspapers--for his resignation. In the midst of this outcry theSenate met and ratified the treaty by a vote of thirty-nine to nine, --agreat triumph for its author. But the debate disclosed a vigorousopposition, Benton and Buchanan both assailing Mr. Webster for neglectingand sacrificing American, and particularly Southern, interests. At the sametime the controversy which Mr. Webster called "the battle of the maps, " andwhich was made a great deal of in England, began to show itself. A map of1783, which Mr. Webster obtained, had been discovered in Paris, sustainingthe English view, while another was afterwards found in London, supportingthe American claim. Neither was of the least consequence, as the new linewas conventional and arbitrary; but the discoveries caused a great deal ofunreasonable excitement. Mr. Webster saw very plainly that the treaty wasnot yet secure. It was exposed to attacks both at home and abroad, and hadstill to pass Parliament. Until it was entirely safe, Mr. Websterdetermined to remain at his post. The clamor continued about hisresignation, and rose round him at his home in Marshfield, whither he hadgone for rest. At the same time the Whig convention of Massachusettsdeclared formally a complete separation from the President. In the languageof to-day, they "read Mr. Tyler out of the party. " There was a variety ofmotives for this action. One was to force Mr. Webster out of the cabinet, another to advance the fortunes of Mr. Clay, in favor of whose presidentialcandidacy movements had begun in Massachusetts, even among Mr. Webster'spersonal friends, as well as elsewhere. Mr. Webster had just declined apublic dinner, but he now decided to meet his friends in Faneuil Hall. Animmense audience gathered to hear him, many of them strongly disapprovinghis course, but after he had spoken a few moments, he had them completelyunder control. He reviewed the negotiation; he discussed fully thedifferences in the party; he deplored, and he did not hesitate strongly tocondemn these quarrels, because by them the fruits of victory were lost, and Whig policy abandoned. With boldness and dignity he denied the right ofthe convention to declare a separation from the President, and the impliedattempt to coerce himself and others. "I am, gentlemen, a little hard tocoax, " he said, "but as to being driven, that is out of the question. If Ichoose to remain in the President's councils, do these gentlemen mean tosay that I cease to be a Massachusetts Whig? I am quite ready to put thatquestion to the people of Massachusetts. " He was well aware that he waslosing party strength by his action; he knew that behind all theseresolutions was the intention to raise his great rival to the presidency;but he did not shrink from avowing his independence and his intention ofdoing what he believed to be right, and what posterity admits to have beenso. Mr. Webster never appeared to better advantage, and he never made amore manly speech than on this occasion, when, without any bravado, hequietly set the influence and the threats of his party at defiance. 

He was not mistaken in thinking that the treaty was not yet in smoothwater. It was again attacked in the Senate, and it had a still more severeordeal to go through in Parliament. The opposition, headed by LordPalmerston, assailed the treaty and Lord Ashburton himself, with thegreatest virulence, denouncing the one as a capitulation, and the other asa grossly unfit appointment. Moreover, the language of the President'smessage led England to believe that we claimed that the right of search hadbeen abandoned. After much correspondence, this misunderstanding drew forthan able letter from Mr. Webster, stating that the right of search had notbeen included in the treaty, but that the "cruising convention" hadrendered the question unimportant. Finally, all complications weredispersed, and the treaty ratified; and then came an attack from anunexpected quarter. General Cass--our minister at Paris--undertook toprotest against the treaty, denounce it, and leave his post on account ofit. This wholly gratuitous assault led to a public correspondence, in whichGeneral Cass, on his own confession, was completely overthrown and brokendown by the Secretary of State. This was the last difficulty, and the workwas finally accepted and complete. 

During this important and absorbing negotiation, other matters of lessmoment, but still of considerable consequence, had been met by Mr. Webster, and successfully disposed of. He made a treaty with Portugal, respectingduties on wines; he carried on a long correspondence with our minister toMexico in relation to certain American prisoners; he vindicated the courseof the United States in regard to the independence of Texas, teaching M. DeBocanegra, the Mexican Secretary of State, a lesson as to the duties ofneutrality, and administering a severe reproof to that gentleman forimputing bad faith to the United States; he conducted the correspondence, and directed the policy of the government in regard to the troubles inRhode Island; he made an effort to settle the Oregon boundary; and, finally, he set on foot the Chinese mission, which, after being offered toMr. Everett, was accepted by Mr. Cushing with the best results. But hisreal work came to an end with the correspondence with General Cass at theclose of 1842, and in May of the following year he resigned thesecretaryship. In the two years during which he had been at the head of thecabinet, he had done much. His work added to his fame by the ability whichit exhibited in a new field, and has stood the test of time. In a period ofdifficulty, and even danger, he proved himself singularly well adapted forthe conduct of foreign affairs, --a department which is most peculiarly andtraditionally the employment and test of a highly-trained statesman. It maybe fairly said that no one, with the exception of John Quincy Adams, hasever shown higher qualities, or attained greater success in theadministration of the State Department, than Mr. Webster did while in Mr. Tyler's cabinet. 

On his resignation, he returned at once to private life, and passed thenext summer on his farm at Marshfield, --now grown into a largeestate, --which was a source of constant interest and delight, and where hewas able to have beneath his eyes his beloved sea. His private affairs werein disorder, and required his immediate attention. He threw himself intohis profession, and his practice at once became active, lucrative, andabsorbing. To this period of retirement belong the second Bunker Hilloration and the Girard argument, which made so much noise in its day. Hekept himself aloof from politics, but could not wholly withdraw from them. The feeling against him, on account of his continuance in the cabinet, hadsubsided, and there was a feeble and somewhat fitful movement to drop Clay, and present Mr. Webster as a candidate for the presidency. Mr. Webster, however, made a speech at Andover, defending his course and advocating Whigprinciples, and declared that he was not a candidate for office. He alsorefused to allow New Hampshire to mar party harmony by bringing his nameforward. When Mr. Clay was nominated, in May, 1844, Mr. Webster, who hadbeheld with anxiety the rise of the Liberty party and prophesied theannexation of Texas, decided, although he was dissatisfied with the silenceof the Whigs on this subject, to sustain their candidate. This wasundoubtedly the wisest course; and, having once enlisted, he gave Mr. Claya hearty and vigorous support, making a series of powerful speeches, chiefly on the tariff, and second in variety and ability only to thosewhich he had delivered in the Harrison campaign. Mr. Clay was defeatedlargely by the action of the Liberty party, and the silence of the Whigsabout Texas and slavery cost them the election. At the beginning of theyear Mr. Webster had declined a reëlection to the Senate, but it wasimpossible for him to remain out of politics, and the pressure to returnsoon became too strong to be resisted. When Mr. Choate resigned in thewinter of 1844-45, Mr. Webster was reëlected senator, from Massachusetts. On the first of March the intrigue, to perfect which Mr. Calhoun hadaccepted the State Department, culminated, and the resolutions for theannexation of Texas passed both branches of Congress. Four days later Mr. Polk's administration, pledged to the support and continuance of theannexation policy, was in power, and Mr. Webster had taken his seat in theSenate for his last term. 

CHAPTER IX. 

RETURN TO THE SENATE. --THE SEVENTH OF MARCH SPEECH. 

The principal events of Mr. Polk's administration belong to or grow out ofthe slavery agitation, then beginning to assume most terrible proportions. So far as Mr. Webster is concerned, they form part of the history of hiscourse on the slavery question, which culminated in the famous speech ofMarch 7, 1850. Before approaching that subject, however, it will benecessary to touch very briefly on one or two points of importance in Mr. Webster's career, which have no immediate bearing on the question ofslavery, and no relation to the final and decisive stand which Mr. Webstertook in regard to it. 

The Ashburton treaty was open to one just criticism. It did not go farenough. It did not settle the northwestern as it did the northeasternboundary. Mr. Webster, as has been said, made an effort to deal with theformer as well as the latter, but he met with no encouragement, and as hewas then preparing to retire from office, the matter dropped. In regard tothe northwestern boundary Mr. Webster agreed with the opinion of Mr. Monroe's cabinet, that the forty-ninth parallel was a fair and proper line;but the British undertook to claim the line of the Columbia River, and thisexcited corresponding claims on our side. The Democracy for politicalpurposes became especially warlike and patriotic. They declared in theirplatform that we must have the whole of Oregon and reoccupy it at once. Mr. Polk embodied this view in his message, together with the assertion thatour rights extended to the line of 54° 40' north, and a shout of"fifty-four-forty or fight" went through the land from the enthusiasticDemocracy. If this attitude meant anything it meant war, inasmuch as ourproposal for the forty-ninth parallel, and the free navigation of theColumbia River, made in the autumn of 1845, had been rejected by England, and then withdrawn by us. Under these circumstances Mr. Webster felt it hisduty to come forward and exert all his influence to maintain peace, and topromote a clear comprehension, both in the United States and in Europe, ofthe points at issue. His speech on this subject and with this aim wasdelivered in Faneuil Hall. He spoke of the necessity of peace, of the fairadjustment offered by an acceptance of the forty-ninth parallel, andderided the idea of casting two great nations into war for such a questionas this. He closed with a forcible and solemn denunciation of the presidentor minister who should dare to take the responsibility for kindling theflames of war on such a pretext. The speech was widely read. It wastranslated into nearly all the languages of Europe, and on the continenthad a great effect. About a month later he wrote to Mr. MacGregor ofGlasgow, suggesting that the British government should offer to accept theforty-ninth parallel, and his letter was shown to Lord Aberdeen, who atonce acted upon the advice it contained. While this letter, however, was onits way, certain resolutions were introduced in the Senate relating to thenational defences, and to give notice of the termination of the conventionfor the joint occupation of Oregon, which would of course have been nearlyequivalent to a declaration of war. Mr. Webster opposed the resolutions, and insisted that, while the Executive, as he believed, had no real wishfor war, this talk was kept up about "all or none, " which left nothing tonegotiate about. The notice finally passed, but before it could bedelivered by our minister in London, Lord Aberdeen's proposition of theforty-ninth parallel, as suggested by Mr. Webster, had been received atWashington, where it was accepted by the truculent administration, agreedto by the Senate, and finally embodied in a treaty. Mr. Webster'sopposition had served its purpose in delaying action and saving blusterfrom being converted into actual war, --a practical conclusion by no meansdesired by the dominant party, who had talked so loud that they came verynear blundering into hostilities merely as a matter of self-justification. The declarations of the Democratic convention and of the DemocraticPresident in regard to England were really only sound and fury, althoughthey went so far that the final retreat was noticeable and not verygraceful. The Democratic leaders had had no intention of fighting withEngland when all they could hope to gain would be glory and hard knocks, but they had a very definite idea of attacking without bluster and in goodearnest another nation where there was territory to be obtained forslavery. 

The Oregon question led, however, to an attack upon Mr. Webster whichcannot be wholly passed over. He had, of course, his personal enemies inboth parties, and his effective opposition to war with England greatlyangered some of the most warlike of the Democrats, and especially Mr. C. J. Ingersoll of Pennsylvania, a bitter Anglophobist. Mr. Ingersoll, inFebruary, made a savage attack upon the Ashburton negotiation, the treatyof Washington, and upon Mr. Webster personally, alleging that as Secretaryof State he had been guilty of a variety of grave misdemeanors, including acorrupt use of the public money. Some of these charges, those relating tothe payment of McLeod's counsel by our government, to instructions to theAttorney-General to take charge of McLeod's defence, and to a threat byMr. Webster that if McLeod were not released New York would be laid inashes, were repeated in the Senate by Mr. Dickinson of New York. Mr. Webster peremptorily called for all the papers relating to the negotiationof 1842, and on the sixth and seventh of April (1846), he made theelaborate speech in defence of the Ashburton treaty, which is included inhis collected works. It is one of the strongest and most virile speeches heever delivered. He was profoundly indignant, and he had the completestmastery of his subject. In fact, he was so deeply angered by the chargesmade against him, that he departed from his almost invariable practice, andindulged in a severe personal denunciation of Ingersoll and Dickinson. Although he did not employ personal invective in his oratory, it was aweapon which he was capable of using with most terrible effect, and hisblows fell with crushing force upon Ingersoll, who writhed under thestrokes. Through some inferior officers of the State Department Ingersollgot what he considered proofs, and then introduced resolutions calling foran account of all payments from the secret service fund; for communicationsmade by Mr. Webster to Messrs. Adams and Gushing of the Committee onForeign Affairs; for all papers relating to McLeod, and for the minutes ofthe committee on Foreign Affairs, to show that Mr. Webster had expressed anopinion adverse to our claim in the Oregon dispute. Mr. Ingersoll closedhis speech by a threat of impeachment as the result and reward of all thisevil-doing, and an angry debate followed, in which Mr. Webster was attackedand defended with equal violence. President Polk replied to the call of theHouse by saying that he could not feel justified, either morally orlegally, in revealing the uses of the secret service fund. Meantime asimilar resolution was defeated in the Senate by a vote of forty-four toone, Mr. Webster remarking that he was glad that the President had refusedthe request of the House; that he should have been sorry to have seen animportant principle violated, and that he was not in the least concerned atbeing thus left without an explanation; he needed no defence, he said, against such attacks. 

Mr. Ingersoll, rebuffed by the President, then made a personal explanation, alleging specifically that Mr. Webster had made an unlawful use of thesecret service money, that he had employed it to corrupt the press, andthat he was a defaulter. Mr. Ashmun of Massachusetts replied with greatbitterness, and the charges were referred to a committee. It appeared, oninvestigation, that Mr. Webster had been extremely careless in hisaccounts, and had delayed in making them up and in rendering vouchers, faults to which he was naturally prone; but it also appeared that the moneyhad been properly spent, that the accounts had ultimately been made up, andthat there was no evidence of improper use. The committee's report waslaid upon the table, the charges came to nothing, and Mr. Ingersoll wasleft in a very unpleasant position with regard to the manner in which hehad obtained his information from the State Department. The affair is ofinterest now merely as showing how deeply rooted was Mr. Webster's habitualcarelessness in money matters, even when it was liable to expose him tovery grave imputations, and what a very dangerous man he was to arouse andput on the defensive. 

Mr. Webster was absent when the intrigue and scheming of Mr. Polkculminated in war with Mexico, and so his vote was not given either for oragainst it. He opposed the volunteer system as a mongrel contrivance, andresisted it as he had the conscription bill in the war of 1812, asunconstitutional. He also opposed the continued prosecution of the war, and, when it drew toward a close, was most earnest against the acquisitionof new territory. In the summer of 1847 he made an extended tour throughthe Southern States, and was received there, as he had been in the West, with every expression of interest and admiration. 

The Mexican war, however, cost Mr. Webster far more than the anxiety anddisappointment which it brought to him as a public man. His second son, Major Edward Webster, died near the City of Mexico, from disease contractedby exposure on the march. This melancholy news reached Mr. Webster whenimportant matters which demanded his attention were pending in Congress. Measures to continue the war were before the Senate even after they hadratified the peace. These measures Mr. Webster strongly resisted, and healso opposed, in a speech of great power, the acquisition of newterritories by conquest, as threatening the very existence of the nation, the principles of the Constitution, and the Constitution itself. Theincrease of senators, which was, of course, the object of the South inannexing Texas and in the proposed additions from Mexico, he regarded asdestroying the balance of the government, and therefore he denounced theplan of acquisition by conquest in the strongest terms. The course about tobe adopted, he said, will turn the Constitution into a deformity, into acurse rather than a blessing; it will make a frame of government founded onthe grossest inequality, and will imperil the existence of the Union. Withthis solemn warning he closed his speech, and immediately left Washingtonfor Boston, where his daughter, Mrs. Appleton, was sinking in consumption. She died on April 28th and was buried on May 1st. Three days later, Mr. Webster followed to the grave the body of his son Edward, which had beenbrought from Mexico. Two such terrible blows, coming so near together, needno comment. They tell their own sad story. One child only remained to himof all who had gathered about his knees in the happy days at Portsmouthand Boston, and his mind turned to thoughts of death as he prepared atMarshfield a final resting-place for himself and those he had loved. Whatever successes or defeats were still in store for him, the heavy cloudof domestic sorrow could never be dispersed in the years that remained, norcould the gaps which had been made be filled or forgotten. 

But the sting of personal disappointment and of frustrated ambition, trivial enough in comparison with such griefs as these, was now added tothis heavy burden of domestic affliction. The success of General Taylor inMexico rendered him a most tempting candidate for the Whigs to nominate. His military services and his personal popularity promised victory, and thefact that no one knew Taylor's political principles, or even whether he wasa Whig or a Democrat, seemed rather to increase than diminish hisattractions in the eyes of the politicians. A movement was set on foot tobring about this nomination, and its managers planned to make Mr. WebsterVice-President on the ticket with the victorious soldier. Such an offer wasa melancholy commentary on his ambitious hopes. He spurned the propositionas a personal indignity, and, disapproving always of the selection ofmilitary men for the presidency, openly refused to give his assent toTaylor's nomination. Other trials, however, were still in store for him. Mr. Clay was a candidate for the nomination, and many Whigs, feeling thathis success meant another party defeat, turned to Taylor as the onlyinstrument to prevent this danger. In February, 1848, a call was issued inNew York for a public meeting to advance General Taylor's candidacy, whichwas signed by many of Mr. Webster's personal and political friends. Mr. Webster was surprised and grieved, and bitterly resented this action. Hisbiographer, Mr. Curtis, speaks of it as a blunder which rendered Mr. Webster's nomination hopeless. The truth is, that it was a most significantillustration of the utter futility of Mr. Webster's presidentialaspirations. These friends in New York, who no doubt honestly desired hisnomination, were so well satisfied that it was perfectly impracticable, that they turned to General Taylor to avoid the disaster threatened, asthey believed, by Mr. Clay's success. Mr. Webster predicted truly that Clayand Taylor would be the leading candidates before the convention, but hewas wholly mistaken in supposing that the movement in New York would bringabout the nomination of the former. His friends had judged rightly. Taylorwas the only man who could defeat Clay, and he was nominated on the fourthballot. Massachusetts voted steadily for Webster, but he never approached anomination. Even Scott had twice as many votes. The result of theconvention led Mr. Webster to take a very gloomy view of the prospects ofthe Whigs, and he was strongly inclined to retire to his tent and let themgo to deserved ruin. In private conversation he spoke most disparagingly ofthe nomination, the Whig party, and the Whig candidate. His strictures werewell deserved, but, as the election drew on, he found or believed it to beimpossible to live up to them. He was not ready to go over to the Free-Soilparty, he could not remain silent, yet he could not give Taylor a fullsupport. In September, 1848, he made his famous speech at Marshfield, inwhich, after declaring that the "sagacious, wise, far-seeing doctrine of_availability_ lay at the root of the whole matter, " and that "thenomination was one not fit to be made, " he said that General Taylor waspersonally a brave and honorable man, and that, as the choice lay betweenhim and the Democratic candidate, General Cass, he should vote for theformer and advised his friends to do the same. He afterwards made anotherspeech, in a similar but milder strain, in Faneuil Hall. Mr. Webster'sattitude was not unlike that of Hamilton when he published his celebratedattack on Adams, which ended by advising all men to vote for thatobjectionable man. The conclusion was a little impotent in both instances, but in Mr. Webster's case the results were better. The politicians andlovers of availability had judged wisely, and Taylor was triumphantlyelected. 

Before the new President was inaugurated, in the winter of 1848-49, thestruggle began in Congress, which led to the delivery of the 7th of Marchspeech by Mr. Webster in the following year. At this point, therefore, itbecomes necessary to turn back and review briefly and rapidly Mr. Webster'scourse in regard to the question of slavery. 

His first important utterance on this momentous question was in 1819, whenthe land was distracted with the conflict which had suddenly arisen overthe admission of Missouri. Massachusetts was strongly in favor of theexclusion of slavery from the new States, and utterly averse to anycompromise. A meeting was held in the state-house at Boston, and acommittee was appointed to draft a memorial to Congress, on the subject ofthe prohibition of slavery in the territories. This memorial, --which wasafterwards adopted, --was drawn by Mr. Webster, as chairman of thecommittee. It set forth, first, the belief of its signers that Congress hadthe constitutional power "to make such a prohibition a condition on theadmission of a new State into the Union, and that it is just and properthat they should exercise that power. " Then came an argument on theconstitutional question, and then the reasons for the exercise of the poweras a general policy. The first point was that it would prevent furtherinequality of representation, such as existed under the Constitution inthe old States, but which could not be increased without danger. The nextargument went straight to the merits of the question, as involved inslavery as a system. After pointing out the value of the ordinance of 1787to the Northwest, the memorial continued:--

 "We appeal to the justice and the wisdom of the national councils to prevent the further progress of a great and serious evil. We appeal to those who look forward to the remote consequences of their measures, and who cannot balance a temporary or trifling convenience, if there were such, against a permanent growing and desolating evil. 

 ". .. The Missouri territory is a new country. If its extensive and fertile fields shall be opened as a market for slaves, the government will seem to become a party to a traffic, which in so many acts, through so many years, it has denounced as impolitic, unchristian, and inhuman. .. . The laws of the United States have denounced heavy penalties against the traffic in slaves, because such traffic is deemed unjust and inhuman. We appeal to the spirit of these laws; we appeal to this justice and humanity; we ask whether they ought not to operate, on the present occasion, with all their force? We have a strong feeling of the injustice of any toleration of slavery. Circumstances have entailed it on a portion of our community, which cannot be immediately relieved from it without consequences more injurious than the suffering of the evil. But to permit it in a new country, where yet no habits are formed which render it indispensable, what is it but to encourage that rapacity and fraud and violence against which we have so long pointed the denunciation of our penal code? What is it but to tarnish the proud fame of the country? What is it but to render questionable all its professions of regard for the rights of humanity and the liberties of mankind. "

A year later Mr. Webster again spoke on one portion of this subject, and inthe same tone of deep hostility and reproach. This second instance was thatfamous and much quoted passage of his Plymouth oration in which hedenounced the African slave-trade. Every one remembers the ringing words:--

 "I hear the sound of the hammer, I see the smoke of the furnaces where manacles and fetters are still forged for human limbs. I see the visages of those who, by stealth and at midnight, labor in this work of hell, --foul and dark as may become the artificers of such instruments of misery and torture. Let that spot be purified, or let it cease to be of New England. Let it be purified, or let it be set aside from the Christian world; let it be put out of the circle of human sympathies and human regards, and let civilized man henceforth have no communion with it. "

This is directed against the African slave-trade, the most hideous feature, perhaps, in the system. But there was no real distinction between slaversplying from one American port to another and those which crossed the oceanfor the same purpose. There was no essential difference between slavesraised for the market in Virginia--whence they were exported and sold--andthose kidnapped for the same object on the Guinea coast. The physicalsuffering of a land journey might be less than that of a long sea-voyage, but the anguish of separation between mother and child was the same in allcases. The chains which clanked on the limbs of the wretched creatures, driven from the auction block along the road which passed beneath thenational capitol, and the fetters of the captured fugitive were no softeror lighter than those forged for the cargo of the slave-ships. Yet the manwho so magnificently denounced the one in 1820, found no cause to repeatthe denunciation in 1850, when only domestic traffic was in question. Thememorial of 1819 and the oration of 1820 place the African slave-trade andthe domestic branch of the business on precisely the same ground of infamyand cruelty. In 1850 Mr. Webster seems to have discovered that there was awide gulf fixed between them, for the latter wholly failed to excite thestern condemnation poured forth by the memorialist of 1819 and the oratorof 1820. The Fugitive Slave Law, more inhuman than either of the forms oftraffic, was defended in 1850 on good constitutional grounds; but theeloquent invective of the early days against an evil which constitutionsmight necessitate but could not alter or justify, does not go hand in handwith the legal argument. 

The next occasion after the Missouri Compromise, on which slavery made itsinfluence strongly felt at Washington, was when Mr. Adams's scheme of thePanama mission aroused such bitter and unexpected resistance in Congress. Mr. Webster defended the policy of the President with great ability, but heconfined himself to the international and constitutional questions which itinvolved, and did not discuss the underlying motive and true source of theopposition. The debate on Foote's resolution in 1830, in the wide rangewhich it took, of course included slavery, and Mr. Hayne had a good deal tosay on that subject, which lay at the bottom of the tariff agitation, as itdid at that of every Southern movement of any real importance. In hisreply, Mr. Webster said that he had made no attack upon this sensitiveinstitution, that he had simply stated that the Northwest had been greatlybenefited by the exclusion of slavery, and that it would have been betterfor Kentucky if she had come within the scope of the ordinance of 1787. Theweight of his remarks was directed to showing that the complaint ofNorthern attacks on slavery as existing in the Southern States, or ofNorthern schemes to compel the abolition of slavery, was utterly groundlessand fallacious. At the same time he pointed out the way in which slaverywas continually used to unite the South against the North. 

 "This feeling, " he said, "always carefully kept alive, and maintained at too intense a heat to admit discrimination or reflection, is a lever of great power in our political machine. There is not and never has been a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of the South. Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been in any way attempted. The slavery of the South has always been regarded as a matter of domestic policy left with the States themselves, and with which the Federal government had nothing to do. Certainly, sir, I am and ever have been of that opinion. The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. Most assuredly, I need not say I differ with him altogether and most widely on that point. I regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest evils, both moral and political. "

His position is here clearly defined. He admits fully that slavery withinthe States cannot be interfered with by the general government, under theConstitution. But he also insists that it is a great evil, and the obviousconclusion is, that its extension, over which the government does havecontrol, must and should be checked. This is the attitude of the memorialand the oration. Nothing has yet changed. There is less fervor in thedenunciation of slavery, but that may be fairly attributed to circumstanceswhich made the maintenance of the general government and the enforcement ofthe revenue laws the main points in issue. 

In 1836 the anti-slavery movement, destined to grow to such vastproportions, began to show itself in the Senate. The first contest came onthe reception of petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District ofColumbia. Mr. Calhoun moved that these petitions should not be received, but his motion was rejected by a large majority. The question then came onthe petitions themselves, and, by a vote of thirty-four to six, theirprayer was rejected, Mr. Webster voting with the minority because hedisapproved this method of disposing of the matter. Soon after, Mr. Websterpresented three similar petitions, two from Massachusetts and one fromMichigan, and moved their reference to a committee of inquiry. He statedthat, while the government had no power whatever over slavery in theStates, it had complete control over slavery in the District, which was atotally distinct affair. He urged a respectful treatment of the petitions, and defended the right of petition and the motives and characters of thepetitioners. He spoke briefly, and, except when he was charged with placinghimself at the head of the petitioners, coldly, and did not touch on themerits of the question, either as to the abolition of slavery in theDistrict or as to slavery itself. 

The Southerners, especially the extremists and the nullifiers, were alwaysmore ready than any one else to strain the powers of the central governmentto the last point, and use them most tyrannically and illegally in theirown interest and in that of their pet institution. The session of 1836furnished a striking example of this characteristic quality. Mr. Calhounat that time introduced his monstrous bill to control the United Statesmails in the interests of slavery, by authorizing postmasters to seize andsuppress all anti-slavery documents. Against this measure Mr. Webster spokeand voted, resting his opposition on general grounds, and sustaining it bya strong and effective argument. In the following year, on his way to theNorth, after the inauguration of Mr. Van Buren, a great public receptionwas given to him in New York, and on that occasion he made the speech inNiblo's Garden, where he defined the Whig principles, arraigned sopowerfully the policy of Jackson, and laid the foundation for the triumphsof the Harrison campaign. In the course of that speech he referred toTexas, and strongly expressed his belief that it should remain independentand should not be annexed. This led him to touch upon slavery. He said:--

 "I frankly avow my entire unwillingness to do anything that shall extend the slavery of the African race on this continent, or add other slave-holding States to the Union. When I say that I regard slavery in itself as a great moral, social, and political evil, I only use the language which has been adopted by distinguished men, themselves citizens of slave-holding States. I shall do nothing, therefore, to favor or encourage its further extension. We have slavery already amongst us. The Constitution found it in the Union, it recognized it, and gave it solemn guaranties. To the full extent of the guaranties we are all bound in honor, in justice, and by the Constitution. .. . But when we come to speak of admitting new States, the subject assumes an entirely different aspect. .. . In my opinion, the people of the United States will not consent to bring into the Union a new, vastly extensive, and slave-holding country, large enough for half a dozen or a dozen States. In my opinion, they ought not to consent to it. .. . On the general question of slavery a great portion of the community is already strongly excited. The subject has not only attracted attention as a question of politics, but it has struck a far deeper-toned chord. It has arrested the religious feeling of the country; it has taken strong hold on the consciences of men. He is a rash man, indeed, and little conversant with human nature, and especially has he a very erroneous estimate of the character of the people of this country, who supposes that a feeling of this kind is to be trifled with or despised. It will assuredly cause itself to be respected. It may be reasoned with, it may be made willing--I believe it is entirely willing--to fulfil all existing engagements and all existing duties, to uphold and defend the Constitution as it is established, with whatever regrets about some provisions which it does actually contain. But to coerce it into silence, to endeavor to restrain its free expression, to seek to compress and confine it, warm as it is and more heated as such endeavors would inevitably render it, --should this be attempted, I know nothing, even in the Constitution or in the Union itself, which would not be endangered by the explosion which might follow. "

Thus Mr. Webster spoke on slavery and upon the agitation against it, in1837. The tone was the same as in 1820, and there was the same ring ofdignified courage and unyielding opposition to the extension andperpetuation of a crying evil. 

In the session of Congress preceding the speech at Niblo's Garden, numerouspetitions for the abolition of slavery in the District had been offered. Mr. Webster reiterated his views as to the proper disposition to be made ofthem; but announced that he had no intention of expressing an opinion as tothe merits of the question. Objections were made to the reception of thepetitions, the question was stated on the reception, and the whole matterwas laid on the table. The Senate, under the lead of Calhoun, was trying toshut the door against the petitioners, and stifle the right of petition;and there was no John Quincy Adams among them to do desperate battleagainst this infamous scheme. 

In the following year came more petitions, and Mr. Calhoun now attempted tostop the agitation in another fashion. He introduced a resolution to theeffect that these petitions were a direct and dangerous attack on the"institution" of the slave-holding States. This Mr. Clay improved in asubstitute, which stated that any act or measure of Congress looking to theabolition of slavery in the District would be a violation of the faithimplied in the cession by Virginia and Maryland, --a just cause of alarm tothe South, and having a direct tendency to disturb and endanger the Union. Mr. Webster wrote to a friend that this was an attempt to make a newConstitution, and that the proceedings of the Senate, when they passed theresolutions, drew a line which could never be obliterated. Mr. Webster alsospoke briefly against the resolutions, confining himself strictly todemonstrating the absurdity of Mr. Clay's doctrine of "plighted faith. " Hedisclaimed carefully, and even anxiously, any intention of expressing anopinion on the merits of the question; although he mentioned one or tworeasonable arguments against abolition. The resolutions were adopted by alarge majority, Mr. Webster voting against them on the grounds set forth inhis speech. Whether the approaching presidential election had anyconnection with his careful avoidance of everything except theconstitutional point, which contrasted so strongly with his recentutterances at Niblo's Garden, it is, of course, impossible to determine. John Quincy Adams, who had no love for Mr. Webster, and who was then in themidst of his desperate struggle for the right of petition, says, in hisdiary, in March, 1838, speaking of the delegation from Massachusetts:--

 "Their policy is dalliance with the South; and they care no more for the right of petition than is absolutely necessary to satisfy the feeling of their constituents. They are jealous of Cushing, who, they think, is playing a double game. They are envious of my position as the supporter of the right of petition; and they truckle to the South to court their favor for Webster. He is now himself tampering with the South on the slavery and the Texas question. "

This harsh judgment may or may not be correct, but it shows very plainlythat Mr. Webster's caution in dealing with these topics was noticed andcriticised at this period. The annexation of Texas, moreover, which he hadso warmly opposed, seemed to him, at this juncture, and not without reason, to be less threatening, owing to the course of events in the youngrepublic. Mr. Adams did not, however, stand alone in thinking that Mr. Webster, at this time, was lukewarm on the subject. In 1839 Mr. Giddingssays "that it was impossible for any man, who submitted so quietly to thedictation of slavery as Mr. Webster, to command that influence which wasnecessary to constitute a successful politician. " How much Mr. Webster'sattitude had weakened, just at this period, is shown better by his ownaction than by anything Mr. Giddings could say. The ship Enterprise, engaged in the domestic slave-trade from Virginia to New Orleans, had beendriven into Port Hamilton, and the slaves had escaped. Great Britainrefused compensation. Thereupon, early in 1840, Mr. Calhoun introducedresolutions declaratory of international law on this point, and settingforth that England had no right to interfere with, or to permit, theescape of slaves from vessels driven into her ports. The resolutions wereidle, because they could effect nothing, and mischievous because theyrepresented that the sentiment of the Senate was in favor of protecting theslave-trade. Upon these resolutions, absurd in character and barbarous inprinciple, Mr. Webster did not even vote. There is a strange contrast herebetween the splendid denunciation of the Plymouth oration and this utterlack of opinion, upon resolutions designed to create a sentiment favorableto the protection of slave-ships engaged in the domestic traffic. Soonafterwards, when Mr. Webster was Secretary of State, he advanced much thesame doctrine in the discussion of the Creole case, and his letter wasapproved by Calhoun. There may be merit in the legal argument, but thecharacter of the cargo, which it was sought to protect, put it beyond thereach of law. We have no need to go farther than the Plymouth oration tofind the true character of the trade in human beings as carried on upon thehigh seas. 

After leaving the cabinet, and resuming his law practice, Mr. Webster, ofcourse, continued to watch with attention the progress of events. Theformation of the Liberty party, in the summer of 1843, appeared to him avery grave circumstance. He had always understood the force of theanti-slavery movement at the North, and it was with much anxiety that henow saw it take definite shape, and assume extreme grounds of opposition. This feeling of anxiety was heightened when he discovered, in the followingwinter, while in attendance upon the Supreme Court at Washington, theintention of the administration to bring about the annexation of Texas, andspring the scheme suddenly upon the country. This policy, with itsconsequence of an enormous extension of slave territory, Mr. Webster hadalways vigorously and consistently opposed, and he was now thoroughlyalarmed. He saw what an effect the annexation would produce upon theanti-slavery movement, and he dreaded the results. He therefore procuredthe introduction of a resolution in Congress against annexation; wrote somearticles in the newspapers against it himself; stirred up his friends inWashington and New York to do the same, and endeavored to start publicmeetings in Massachusetts. His friends in Boston and elsewhere, and theWhigs generally, were disposed to think his alarm ill-founded. They wereabsorbed in the coming presidential election, and were too ready to do Mr. Webster the injustice of supposing that his views upon the probability ofannexation sprang from jealousy of Mr. Clay. The suspicion was unfoundedand unfair. Mr. Webster was wholly right and perfectly sincere. He did agood deal in an attempt to rouse the North. The only criticism to be madeis that he did not do more. One public meeting would have been enough, ifhe had spoken frankly, declared that he knew, no matter how, thatannexation was contemplated, and had then denounced it as he did at Niblo'sGarden. "One blast upon his bugle-horn were worth a thousand men. " Such aspeech would have been listened to throughout the length and breadth of theland; but perhaps it was too much to expect this of him in view of hisdelicate relations with Mr. Clay. At a later period, in the course of thecampaign, he denounced annexation and the increase of slave territory, butunfortunately it was then too late. The Whigs had preserved silence on thesubject at their convention, and it was difficult to deal with it withoutreflecting on their candidate. Mr. Webster vindicated his own position andhis own wisdom, but the mischief could not then be averted. The annexationof Texas after the rejection of the treaty in 1844 was carried through, nearly a year later, by a mixture of trickery and audacity in the lasthours of the Tyler administration. 

Four days after the consummation of this project Mr. Webster took his seatin the Senate, and on March 11 wrote to his son that, "while we feel as weought about the annexation of Texas, we ought to keep in view the truegrounds of objection to that measure. Those grounds are, --want ofconstitutional power, --danger of too great an extent of territory, andopposition to the increase of slavery and slave representation. It wasproperly considered, also, as a measure tending to produce war. " He thengoes on to argue that Mexico had no good cause for war; but it is evidentthat he already dreaded just that result. When Congress assembled again, inthe following December, the first matter to engage their attention was theadmission of Texas as a State of the Union. It was impossible to preventthe passage of the resolution, but Mr. Webster stated his objections to themeasure. His speech was brief and very mild in tone, if compared with thelanguage which he had frequently used in regard to the annexation. Heexpressed his opposition to this method of obtaining new territory byresolution instead of treaty, and to acquisition of territory as foreign tothe true spirit of the Republic, and as endangering the Constitution andthe Union by increasing the already existing inequality of representation, and extending the area of slavery. He dwelt on the inviolability of slaveryin the States, and did not touch upon the evils of the system itself. 

By the following spring the policy of Mr. Polk had culminated, intrigue haddone its perfect work, hostilities had been brought on with Mexico, and inMay Congress was invited to declare a war which the administration hadtaken care should already exist. Mr. Webster was absent at this time, anddid not vote on the declaration of war; and when he returned he confinedhimself to discussing the war measures, and to urging the cessation ofhostilities, and the renewal of efforts to obtain peace. 

The next session--that of the winter of 1846-47--was occupied, of course, almost entirely with the affairs of the war. In these measures Mr. Webstertook scarcely any part; but toward the close of the session, when the termson which the war should be concluded were brought up, he again cameforward. February 1, 1847, Mr. Wilmot of Pennsylvania introduced the famousproviso, which bears his name, as an amendment to the bill appropriatingthree millions of dollars for extraordinary expenses. By this provisoslavery was to be excluded from all territory thereafter acquired orannexed by the United States. A fortnight later Mr. Webster, who wasopposed to the acquisition of more territory on any terms, introduced tworesolutions in the Senate, declaring that the war ought not to beprosecuted for the acquisition of territory, and that Mexico should beinformed that we did not aim at seizing her domain. A similar resolutionwas offered by Mr. Berrien of Georgia, and defeated by a party vote. Onthis occasion Mr. Webster spoke with great force and in a tone of solemnwarning against the whole policy of territorial aggrandizement. Hedenounced all that had been done in this direction, and attacked withtelling force the Northern democracy, which, while it opposed slavery andfavored the Wilmot Proviso, was yet ready to admit new territory, evenwithout the proviso. His attitude at this time, in opposition to anyfurther acquisition of territory on any terms, was strong and determined, but his policy was a terrible confession of weakness. It amounted to sayingthat we must not acquire territory because we had not sufficient courage tokeep slavery out of it. The Whigs were in a minority, however, and Mr. Webster could effect nothing. When the Wilmot Proviso came before theSenate Mr. Webster voted for it, but it was defeated, and the way was clearfor Mr. Polk and the South to bring in as much territory as they could get, free of all conditions which could interfere with the extension of slavery. In September, 1847, after speaking and voting as has just been described inthe previous session of Congress, Mr. Webster addressed the Whig conventionat Springfield on the subject of the Wilmot Proviso. What he then said isof great importance in any comparison which may be made between his earlierviews and those which he afterwards put forward, in March, 1850, on thesame subject. The passage is as follows:--

 "We hear much just now of a panacea for the dangers and evils of slavery and slave annexation, which they call the 'Wilmot Proviso. ' That certainly is a just sentiment, but it is not a sentiment to found any new party upon. It is not a sentiment on which Massachusetts Whigs differ. There is not a man in this hall who holds to it more firmly than I do, nor one who adheres to it more than another. 

 "I feel some little interest in this matter, sir. Did I not commit myself in 1837 to the whole doctrine, fully, entirely? And I must be permitted to say that I cannot quite consent that more recent discoverers should claim the merit, and take out a patent. 

 "I deny the priority of their invention. Allow me to say, sir, it is not their thunder. 

 "There is no one who can complain of the North for resisting the increase of slave representation, because it gives power to the minority in a manner inconsistent with the principles of our government. What is past must stand; what is established must stand; and with the same firmness with which I shall resist every plan to augment the slave representation, or to bring the Constitution into hazard by attempting to extend our dominions, shall I contend to allow existing rights to remain. 

 "Sir, I can only say that, in my judgment, we are to use the first, the last, and every occasion which occurs, in maintaining our sentiments against the extension of the slave-power. "

In the following winter Mr. Webster continued his policy of opposition toall acquisitions of territory. Although the cloud of domestic sorrow wasalready upon him, he spoke against the legislative powers involved in the"Ten Regiment" Bill, and on the 23d of March, after the ratification of thetreaty of peace, which carried with it large cessions of territory, hedelivered a long and elaborate speech on the "Objects of the Mexican War. "The weight of his speech was directed against the acquisition ofterritory, on account of its effect on the Constitution, and the increasedinequality of representation which it involved. He referred to the plan ofcutting up Texas so as to obtain ten senators, as "borough mongering" on agrand scale, a course which he proposed to resist to the last; and heconcluded by denouncing the whole project as one calculated to turn theConstitution into a curse rather than a blessing. "I resist it to-day andalways, " he said. "Whoever falters or whoever flies, I continue thecontest. "

In June General Taylor was nominated, and soon after Mr. Webster leftWashington, although Congress was still in session. He returned in August, in time to take part in the settlement of the Oregon question. The South, with customary shrewdness, was endeavoring to use the territorialorganization of Oregon as a lever to help them in their struggle to gaincontrol of the new conquests. A bill came up from the House with noprovision in regard to slavery, and Mr. Douglas carried an amendment to it, declaring the Missouri Compromise to be in full force in Oregon. The Housedisagreed, and, on the question of receding, Mr. Webster took occasion tospeak on the subject of slavery in the territories. He was disgusted withthe nomination of Taylor and with the cowardly silence of the Whigs on thequestion of the extension of slavery. In this frame of mind he made one ofthe strongest and best speeches he ever delivered on this topic. He deniedthat slavery was an "institution;" he denied that the local right to holdslaves implied the right of the owner to carry them with him and keep themin slavery on free soil; he stated in the strongest possible manner theright of Congress to control slavery or to prohibit it in the territories;and he concluded with a sweeping declaration of his opposition to anyextension of slavery or any increase of slave representation. The Oregonbill finally passed under the pressure of the "Free-Soil" nominations, witha clause inserted in the House, embodying substantially the principles ofthe Wilmot Proviso. 

When Congress adjourned, Mr. Webster returned to Marshfield, where he madethe speech on the nomination of General Taylor. It was a crisis in hislife. At that moment he could have parted with the Whigs and put himself atthe head of the constitutional anti-slavery party. The Free-Soilers hadtaken the very ground against the extension of slavery which he had so longoccupied. He could have gone consistently, he could have separated from theWhigs on a great question of principle, and such a course would have beenno stronger evidence of personal disappointment than was afforded by thedeclaration that the nomination of Taylor was one not fit to be made. Mr. Webster said that he fully concurred in the main object of the BuffaloConvention, that he was as good a Free-Soiler as any of them, but that theFree-Soil party presented nothing new or valuable, and he did not believein Mr. Van Buren. He then said it was not true that General Taylor wasnominated by the South, as charged by the Free-Soilers; but he did notconfess, what was equally true, that Taylor was nominated through fear ofthe South, as was shown by his election by Southern votes. Mr. Webster'sconclusion was, that it was safer to trust a slave-holder, a man withoutknown political opinions, and a party which had not the courage of itsconvictions, than to run the risk of the election of another Democrat. Mr. Webster's place at that moment was at the head of a new party based on theprinciples which he had himself formulated against the extension ofslavery. Such a change might have destroyed his chances for the presidency, if he had any, but it would have given him one of the greatest places inAmerican history and made him the leader in the new period. He lost hisopportunity. He did not change his party, but he soon after accepted theother alternative and changed his opinions. 

His course once taken, he made the best of it, and delivered a speech inFaneuil Hall, in which it is painful to see the effort to push asideslavery and bring forward the tariff and the sub-treasury. He scoffed atthis absorption in "one idea, " and strove to thrust it away. It was thecry of "peace, peace, " when there was no peace, and when Daniel Websterknew there could be none until the momentous question had been met andsettled. Like the great composer who heard in the first notes of hissymphony "the hand of Fate knocking at the door, " the great New Englandstatesman heard the same warning in the hoarse murmur against slavery, buthe shut his ears to the dread sound and passed on. 

When Mr. Webster returned to Washington, after the election of GeneralTaylor, the strife had already begun over our Mexican conquests. The Southhad got the territory, and the next point was to fasten slavery upon it. The North was resolved to prevent the further spread of slavery, but was byno means so determined or so clear in its views as its opponent. PresidentPolk urged in his message that Congress should not legislate on thequestion of slavery in the territories, but that if they did, the right ofslave-holders to carry their slaves with them to the new lands should berecognized, and that the best arrangement was to extend the line of theMissouri Compromise to the Pacific. For the originator and promoter of theMexican war this was a very natural solution, and was a fit conclusion toone of the worst presidential careers this country has ever seen. The planhad only one defect. It would not work. One scheme after another wasbrought before the Senate, only to fail. Finally, Mr. Webster introducedhis own, which was merely to authorize military government and themaintenance of existing laws in the Mexican cessions, and a consequentpostponement of the question. The proposition was reasonable and sensible, but it fared little better than the others. The Southerners found, as theyalways did sooner or later, that facts were against them. The people of NewMexico petitioned for a territorial government and for the exclusion ofslavery. Mr. Calhoun pronounced this action "insolent. " Slavery was notonly to be permitted, but the United States government was to be made toforce it upon the people of the territories. Finally, a resolution wasoffered "to extend the Constitution" to the territories, --one of thoseutterly vague propositions in which the South delighted to hidewell-defined schemes for extending, not the Constitution, butslave-holding, to fresh fields and virgin soil. This gave rise to a sharpdebate between Mr. Webster and Mr. Calhoun as to whether the Constitutionextended to the territories or not. Mr. Webster upheld the latter view, andthe discussion is chiefly interesting from the fact that Mr. Webster gotthe better of Mr. Calhoun in the argument, and as an example of thelatter's excessive ingenuity in sustaining and defending a more thandoubtful proposition. The result of the whole business was, that nothingwas done, except to extend the revenue laws of the United States to NewMexico and California. 

Before Congress again assembled, one of the subjects of their debates hadtaken its fortunes into its own hands. California, rapidly peopled by thediscoveries of gold, had held a convention and adopted a frame ofgovernment with a clause prohibiting slavery. When Congress met, theSenators and Representatives of California were in Washington with theirfree Constitution in their hands, demanding the admission of their Stateinto the Union. 

New Mexico was involved in a dispute with Texas as to boundaries, and ifthe claim of Texas was sanctioned, two thirds of the disputed territorywould come within the scope of the annexation resolutions, and beslave-holding States. Then there was the further question whether theWilmot Proviso should be applied to New Mexico on her organization as aterritory. 

The President, acting under the influence of Mr. Seward, advised thatCalifornia should be admitted, and the question of slavery in the otherterritories be decided when they should apply for admission. Feeling wasrunning very high in Washington, and there was a bitter and protractedstruggle of three weeks, before the House succeeded in choosing a Speaker. The State Legislatures on both sides took up the burning question, anddebated and resolved one way or the other with great excitement. TheSouthern members held meetings, and talked about secession and aboutwithdrawing from Congress. The air was full of murmurs of dissolution andintestine strife. The situation was grave and even threatening. 

In this state of affairs Mr. Clay, now an old man, and with but a shortterm of life before him, resolved to try once more to solve the problem andtide over the dangers by a grand compromise. The main features of his planwere: the admission of California with her free Constitution; theorganization of territorial governments in the Mexican conquests withoutany reference to slavery; the adjustment of the Texan boundary; a guarantyof the existence of slavery in the District of Columbia until Marylandshould consent to its abolition; the prohibition of the slave-trade in theDistrict; provision for the more effectual enforcement of the FugitiveSlave Law, and a declaration that Congress had no power over theslave-trade between the slave-holding States. As the admission ofCalifornia was certain, the proposition to bring about the prohibition ofthe slave-trade in the District was the only concession to the North. Everything else was in the interest of the South; but then that was alwaysthe manner in which compromises with slavery were made. They could beeffected in no other way. 

This outline Mr. Clay submitted to Mr. Webster January 21, 1850, and Mr. Webster gave it his full approval, subject, of course, to further and morecareful consideration. February 5 Mr. Clay introduced his plan in theSenate, and supported it in an eloquent speech. On the 13th the Presidentsubmitted the Constitution of California, and Mr. Foote moved to refer it, together with all matters relating to slavery, to a select committee. Itnow became noised about that Mr. Webster intended to address the Senate onthe pending measures, and on the 7th of March he delivered the memorablespeech which has always been known by its date. 

It may be premised that in a literary and rhetorical point of view thespeech of the 7th of March was a fine one. The greater part of it is takenup with argument and statement, and is very quiet in tone. But the famouspassage beginning "peaceable secession, " which came straight from theheart, and the peroration also, have the glowing eloquence which shone withso much splendor all through the reply to Hayne. The speech can be readilyanalyzed. With extreme calmness of language Mr. Webster discussed the wholehistory of slavery in ancient and modern times, and under the Constitutionof the United States. His attitude is so judicial and historical, that ifit is clear he disapproved of the system, it is not equally evident that hecondemned it. He reviewed the history of the annexation of Texas, defendedhis own consistency, belittled the Wilmot Proviso, admitted substantiallythe boundary claims of Texas, and declared that the character of everypart of the country, so far as slavery or freedom was concerned, was nowsettled, either by law or nature, and that he should resist the insertionof the Wilmot Proviso in regard to New Mexico, because it would be merely awanton taunt and reproach to the South. He then spoke of the change offeeling and opinion both at the North and the South in regard to slavery, and passed next to the question of mutual grievances. He depicted at lengththe grievances of the South, including the tone of the Northern press, theanti-slavery resolutions of the Legislature, the utterances of theabolitionists, and the resistance to the Fugitive Slave Law. The last, which he thought the only substantial and legally remediable complaint, hedwelt on at great length, and severely condemned the refusal of certainStates to comply with this provision of the Constitution. Then came thegrievances of the North against the South, which were dealt with verybriefly. In fact, the Northern grievances, according to Mr. Webster, consisted of the tone of the Southern press and of Southern speeches which, it must be confessed, were at times a little violent and somewhatoffensive. The short paragraph reciting the unconstitutional andhigh-handed action of the South in regard to free negroes employed asseamen on Northern vessels, and the outrageous treatment of Mr. Hoar atCharleston in connection with this matter, was not delivered, Mr. Giddingssays, but was inserted afterwards and before publication, at the suggestionof a friend. After this came the fine burst about secession, and adeclaration of faith that the Southern convention called at Nashville wouldprove patriotic and conciliatory. The speech concluded with a strong appealin behalf of nationality and union. 

Mr. Curtis correctly says that a great majority of Mr. Webster'sconstituents, if not of the whole North, disapproved this speech. He mighthave added that that majority has steadily increased. The popular verdicthas been given against the 7th of March speech, and that verdict has passedinto history. Nothing can now be said or written which will alter the factthat the people of this country who maintained and saved the Union havepassed judgment upon Mr. Webster and condemned what he said on the 7th ofMarch, 1850, as wrong in principle and mistaken in policy. This opinion isnot universal, --no opinion is, --but it is held by the great body of mankindwho know or care anything about the subject, and it cannot be changed orsubstantially modified, because subsequent events have fixed its place andworth irrevocably. It is only necessary, therefore, to examine very brieflythe grounds of this adverse judgment, and the pleas put in against it byMr. Webster and by his most devoted partisans. 

From the sketch which has been given of Mr. Webster's course on the slaveryquestion, we see that in 1819 and 1820 he denounced in the strongest termsslavery and every form of slave-trade; that while he fully admitted thatCongress had no power to touch slavery in the States, he asserted that itwas their right and their paramount duty absolutely to stop any furtherextension of slave territory. In 1820 he was opposed to any compromise onthis question. Ten years later he stood out to the last, unaffected bydefeat, against the principle of compromise which sacrificed the rights andthe dignity of the general government to the resistance and threatenedsecession of a State. 

After the reply to Hayne in 1830, Mr. Webster became a standing candidatefor the presidency, or for the Whig nomination to that office. From thattime forth, the sharp denunciation of slavery and traffic in slavesdisappears, although there is no indication that he ever altered hisoriginal opinion on these points; but he never ceased, sometimes mildly, sometimes in the most vigorous and sweeping manner, to attack and opposethe extension of slavery to new regions, and the increase of slaveterritory. If, then, in the 7th of March speech, he was inconsistent withhis past, such inconsistency must appear, if at all, in his general tone inregard to slavery, in his views as to the policy of compromise, and in hisattitude toward the extension of slavery, the really crucial question ofthe time. 

As to the first point, there can be no doubt that there is a vastdifference between the tone of the Plymouth oration and the Boston memorialtoward slavery and the slave-trade, and that of the 7th of March speech inregard to the same subjects. For many years Mr. Webster had had but littleto say against slavery as a system, but in the 7th of March speech, inreviewing the history of slavery, he treats the matter in such a very calmmanner, that he not only makes the best case possible for the South, buthis tone is almost apologetic when speaking in their behalf. To thegrievances of the South he devotes more than five pages of his speech, tothose of the North less than two. As to the infamy of making the nationalcapital a great slave-mart, he has nothing to say--although it was a matterwhich figured as one of the elements in Mr. Clay's scheme. 

But what most shocked the North in this connection were his utterances inregard to the Fugitive Slave Law. There can be no doubt that under theConstitution the South had a perfect right to claim the extradition offugitive slaves. The legal argument in support of that right was excellent, but the Northern people could not feel that it was necessary for DanielWebster to make it. The Fugitive Slave Law was in absolute conflict withthe awakened conscience and moral sentiment of the North. To strengthenthat law, and urge its enforcement, was a sure way to make the resistanceto it still more violent and intolerant. Constitutions and laws willprevail over much, and allegiance to them is a high duty, but when theycome into conflict with a deep-rooted moral sentiment, and with theprinciples of liberty and humanity, they must be modified, or else theywill be broken to pieces. That this should have been the case in 1850 wasno doubt to be regretted, but it was none the less a fact. To insist uponthe constitutional duty of returning fugitive slaves, to upbraid the Northwith their opposition, and to urge upon them and upon the country thestrict enforcement of the extradition law, was certain to embitter andintensify the opposition to it. The statesmanlike course was to recognizethe ground of Northern resistance, to show the South that a too violentinsistence upon their constitutional rights would be fatal, and to endeavorto obtain such concessions as would allay excited feelings. Mr. Webster'sstrong argument in favor of the Fugitive Slave Law pleased the South, ofcourse; but it irritated and angered the North. It promoted the verystruggle which it proposed to allay, for it admitted the existence of onlyone side to the question. The consciences of men cannot be coerced; andwhen Mr. Webster undertook to do it he dashed himself against the rocks. People did not stop to distinguish between a legal argument and a defenceof the merits of catching runaway slaves. To refer to the original law of1793 was idle. Public opinion had changed in half a century; and what hadseemed reasonable at the close of the eighteenth century was monstrous inthe middle of the nineteenth. 

All this Mr. Webster declined to recognize. He upheld without diminution ormodification the constitutional duty of sending escaping slaves back tobondage; and from the legal soundness of this position there is no escape. The trouble was that he had no word to say against the cruelty andbarbarity of the system. To insist upon the necessity of submitting to thehard and repulsive duty imposed by the Constitution was one thing. To urgesubmission without a word of sorrow or regret was another. The North felt, and felt rightly, that while Mr. Webster could not avoid admitting theforce of the constitutional provisions about fugitive slaves, and wasobliged to bow to their behest, yet to defend them without reservation, toattack those who opposed them, and to urge the rigid enforcement of aFugitive Slave Law, was not in consonance with his past, his conscience, and his duty to his constituents. The constitutionality of a Fugitive SlaveLaw may be urged and admitted over and over again, but this could not makethe North believe that advocacy of slave-catching was a task suited toDaniel Webster. The simple fact was that he did not treat the generalquestion of slavery as he always had treated it. Instead of denouncing anddeploring it, and striking at it whenever the Constitution permitted, heapologized for its existence, and urged the enforcement of its mostobnoxious laws. This was not his attitude in 1820; this was not what thepeople of the North expected of him in 1850. 

In regard to the policy of compromise there is a much stronger contrastbetween Mr. Webster's attitude in 1850 and his earlier course than in thecase of his views on the general subject of slavery. In 1819, although notin public life, Mr. Webster, as is clear from the tone of the Bostonmemorial, was opposed to any compromise involving an extension of slavery. In 1832-33 he was the most conspicuous and unyielding enemy of theprinciple of compromise in the country. He then took the ground that thetime had come to test the strength of the Constitution and the Union, andthat any concession would have a fatally weakening effect. In 1850 hesupported a compromise which was so one-sided that it hardly deserves thename. The defence offered by his friends on this subject--and it is thestrongest point they have been able to make--is that these sacrifices, orcompromises, were necessary to save the Union, and that--although they didnot prevent ultimate secession--they caused a delay of ten years, whichenabled the North to gather sufficient strength to carry the civil war to asuccessful conclusion. It is not difficult to show historically that thepolicy of compromise between the national principle and unlawful oppositionto that principle was an entire mistake from the very outset, and that ifillegal and partisan State resistance had always been put down with a firmhand, civil war might have been avoided. Nothing strengthened the generalgovernment more than the well-judged and well-timed display of force bywhich Washington and Hamilton crushed the Whiskey Rebellion, or than thehappy accident of peace in 1814, which brought the separatist movement inNew England to a sudden end. After that period Mr. Clay's policy ofcompromise prevailed, and the result was that the separatist movement wasidentified with the maintenance of slavery, and steadily gathered strength. In 1819 the South threatened and blustered in order to prevent the completeprohibition of slavery in the Louisiana purchase. In 1832 South Carolinapassed the nullification ordinance because she suffered by the operation ofa protective tariff. In 1850 a great advance had been made in theirpretensions. Secession was threatened because the South feared that theMexican conquests would not be devoted to the service of slavery. Nothinghad been done, nothing was proposed even, prejudicial to Southerninterests; but the inherent weakness of slavery, and the mild conciliatoryattitude of Northern statesmen, incited the South to make imperious demandsfor favors, and seek for positive gains. They succeeded in 1850, and in1860 they had reached the point at which they were ready to plunge thecountry into the horrors of civil war solely because they lost anelection. They believed, first, that the North would yield everything forthe sake of union, and secondly, that if there was a limit to theircapacity for surrender in this direction, yet a people capable of so muchsubmission in the past would never fight to maintain the Union. The Southmade a terrible mistake, and was severely punished for it; but thecompromises of 1820, 1833, and 1850 furnished some excuse for the wild ideathat the North would not and could not fight. Whether a strict adherence tothe strong, fearless policy of Hamilton, which was adopted by Jackson andadvocated by Webster in 1832-33, would have prevented civil war, must, ofcourse, remain matter of conjecture. It is at least certain that in thatway alone could war have been avoided, and that the Clay policy ofcompromise made war inevitable by encouraging slave-holders to believe thatthey could always obtain anything they wanted by a sufficient show ofviolence. 

It is urged, however, that the policy of compromise having been adopted, achange in 1850 would have simply precipitated the sectional conflict. Injudging Mr. Webster, the practical question, of course, is as to the bestmethod of dealing with matters as they actually were and not as they mighthave been had a different course been pursued in 1820 and 1832. Thepartisans of Mr. Webster have always taken the ground that in 1850 thechoice was between compromise and secession; that the events of 1861 showedthat the South, in 1850, was not talking for mere effect; that themaintenance of the Union was the paramount consideration of a patrioticstatesman; and that the only practicable and proper course was tocompromise. Admitting fully that Mr. Webster's first and highest duty wasto preserve the Union, it is perfectly clear now, when all these eventshave passed into history, that he took the surest way to make civil warinevitable, and that the position of 1832 should not have been abandoned. In the first place, the choice was not confined to compromise or secession. The President, the official head of the Whig party, had recommended theadmission of California, as the only matter actually requiring immediatesettlement, and that the other questions growing out of the new territoriesshould be dealt with as they arose. Mr. Curtis, Mr. Webster's biographer, says this was an impracticable plan, because peace could not be keptbetween New Mexico and Texas, and because there was great excitement aboutthe slavery question throughout the country. These seem very insufficientreasons, and only the first has any practical bearing on the matter. General Taylor said: Admit California, for that is an immediate andpressing duty, and I will see to it that peace is preserved on the Texanboundary. Zachary Taylor may not have been a great statesman, but he was abrave and skilful soldier, and an honest man, resolved to maintain theUnion, even if he had to shoot a few Texans to do it. His policy was boldand manly, and the fact that it was said to have been inspired by Mr. Seward, a leader in the only Northern party which had any real principle tofight for, does not seem such a monstrous idea as it did in 1850 or doesstill to those who sustain Mr. Webster's action. That General Taylor'spolicy was not so wild and impracticable as Mr. Webster's friends wouldhave us think, is shown by the fact that Mr. Benton, Democrat andSoutherner as he was, but imbued with the vigor of the Jackson school, believed that each question should be taken up by itself and settled on itsown merits. A policy which seemed wise to three such different men asTaylor, Seward, and Benton, could hardly have been so utterly impracticableand visionary as Mr. Webster's partisans would like the world to believe. It was in fact one of the cases which that extremely practical statesmanNicolo Machiavelli had in mind when he wrote that, "Dangers that are seenafar off are easily prevented; but protracting till they are near at hand, the remedies grow unseasonable and the malady incurable. "

It may be readily admitted that there was a great and perilous politicalcrisis in 1850, as Mr. Webster said. In certain quarters, in the excitementof party strife, there was a tendency to deride Mr. Webster as a"Union-saver, " and to take the ground that there had been no real danger ofsecession. This, as we can see now very plainly, was an unfounded idea. When Congress met, the danger of secession was very real, although perhapsnot very near. The South, although they intended to secede as a lastresort, had no idea that they should be brought to that point. Menaces ofdisunion, ominous meetings and conventions, they probably calculated, wouldeffect their purpose and obtain for them what they wanted, and subsequentevents proved that they were perfectly right in this opinion. On February14 Mr. Webster wrote to Mr. Harvey:--

 "I do not partake in any degree in those apprehensions which you say some of our friends entertain of the dissolution of the Union or the breaking up of the government. I am mortified, it is true, at the violent tone assumed here by many persons, because such violence in debate only leads to irritation, and is, moreover, discreditable to the government and the country. But there is no serious danger, be assured, and so assure our friends. "

The next day he wrote to Mr. Furness, a leader of the anti-slavery party, expressing his abhorrence of slavery as an institution, his unwillingnessto break up the existing political system to secure its abolition, and hisbelief that the whole matter must be left with Divine Providence. It isclear from this letter that he had dismissed any thought of assuming anaggressive attitude toward slavery, but there is nothing to indicate thathe thought the Union could be saved from wreck only by substantialconcessions to the South. Between the date of the letter to Harvey andMarch 7, Mr. Curtis says that the aspect of affairs had materially changed, and that the Union was in serious peril. There is nothing to show that Mr. Webster thought so, or that he had altered the opinion which he hadexpressed on February 14. In fact, Mr. Curtis's view is the exact reverseof the true state of affairs. If there was any real and immediate danger tothe Union, it existed on February 14, and ceased immediately afterwards, onFebruary 16, as Dr. Von Holst correctly says, when the House ofRepresentatives laid on the table the resolution of Mr. Root of Ohio, prohibiting the extension of slavery to the territories. By that vote, thevictory was won by the slave-power, and the peril of speedy disunionvanished. Nothing remained but to determine how much the South would getfrom their victory, and how hard a bargain they could drive. The admissionof California was no more of a concession than a resolution not tointroduce slavery in Massachusetts would have been. All the rest of thecompromise plan, with the single exception of the prohibition of theslave-trade in the District of Columbia, was made up of concessions to theSouthern and slave-holding interest. That Henry Clay should haveoriginated and advocated this scheme was perfectly natural. However wrongor mistaken, this had been his steady and unbroken policy from the outset, as the best method of preserving the Union and advancing the cause ofnationality. Mr. Clay was consistent and sincere, and, however much he mayhave erred in his general theory, he never swerved from it. But with Mr. Webster the case was totally different. He had opposed the principle ofcompromise from the beginning, and in 1833, when concession was morereasonable than in 1850, he had offered the most strenuous and unbendingresistance. Now he advocated a compromise which was in reality little lessthan a complete surrender on the part of the North. On the general questionof compromise he was, of course, grossly inconsistent, and the history ofthe time, as it appears in the cold light of the present day, shows plainlythat, while he was brave and true and wise in 1833, in 1850 he was not onlyinconsistent, but that he erred deeply in policy and statesmanship. It hasalso been urged in behalf of Mr. Webster that he went no farther than theRepublicans in 1860 in the way of concession, and that as in 1860 so in1850, anything was permissible which served to gain time. In the firstplace, the _tu quoque_ argument proves nothing and has no weight. In thesecond place, the situations in 1850 and in 1860 were very different. 

There were at the former period, in reference to slavery, four parties inthe country--the Democrats, the Free-Soilers, the Abolitionists, and theWhigs. The three first had fixed and widely-varying opinions; the last wastrying to live without opinions, and soon died. The pro-slavery Democratswere logical and practical; the Abolitionists were equally logical butthoroughly impracticable and unconstitutional, avowed nullifiers andsecessionists; the Free-Soilers were illogical, constitutional, andperfectly practical. As Republicans, the Free-Soilers proved thecorrectness and good sense of their position by bringing the great majorityof the Northern people to their support. But at the same time theirposition was a difficult one, for while they were an anti-slavery party andhad set on foot constitutional opposition to the extension of slavery, their fidelity to the Constitution compelled them to admit the legality ofthe Fugitive Slave Law and of slavery in the States. They aimed, of course, first to check the extension of slavery and then to efface it by gradualrestriction and full compensation to slave-holders. When they had carriedthe country in 1860, they found themselves face to face with a breakingUnion and an impending war. That many of them were seriously frightened, and, to avoid war and dissolution, would have made great concessions, cannot be questioned; but their controlling motive was to hold thingstogether by any means, no matter how desperate, until they could getpossession of the government. This was the only possible and the only wisepolicy, but that it involved them in some contradictions in that winter ofexcitement and confusion is beyond doubt. History will judge the men andevents of 1860 according to the circumstances of the time, but nothing thathappened then has any bearing on Mr. Webster's conduct. He must be judgedaccording to the circumstances of 1850, and the first and most obvious factis, that he was not fighting merely to gain time and obtain control of thegeneral government. The crisis was grave and serious in the extreme, butneither war nor secession were imminent or immediate, nor did Mr. Websterever assert that they were. He thought war and secession might come, and itwas against this possibility and probability that he sought to provide. Hewished to solve the great problem, to remove the source of danger, to setthe menacing agitation at rest. He aimed at an enduring and definitesettlement, and that was the purpose of the 7th of March speech. Hisreasons--and of course they were clear and weighty in his ownmind--proceeded from the belief that this wretched compromise measureoffered a wise, judicious, and permanent settlement of questions which, intheir constant recurrence, threatened more and more the stability of theUnion. History has shown how wofully mistaken he was in this opinion. 

The last point to be considered in connection with the 7th of March speechis the ground then taken by Mr. Webster with reference to the extension ofslavery. To this question the speech was chiefly directed, and it is theportion which has aroused the most heated discussion. What Mr. Webster'sviews had always been on the subject of slavery extension every one knewthen and knows now. He had been the steady and uncompromising opponent ofthe Southern policy, and in season and out of season, sometimes vehementlysometimes gently, but always with firmness and clearness, he had declaredagainst it. The only question is, whether he departed from theseoften-expressed opinions on the 7th of March. In the speech itself hedeclared that he had not abated one jot in his views in this respect, andhe argued at great length to prove his consistency, which, if it were to beeasily seen of men, certainly needed neither defence nor explanation. Thecrucial point was, whether, in organizing the new territories, theprinciple of the Wilmot Proviso should be adopted as part of the measure. This famous proviso Mr. Webster had declared in 1847 to represent exactlyhis own views. He had then denied that the idea was the invention of anyone man, and scouted the notion that on this doctrine there could be anydifference of opinion among Whigs. On March 7 he announced that he wouldnot have the proviso attached to the territorial bills, and should opposeany effort in that direction. The reasons he gave for this apparent changewere, that nature had forbidden slavery in the newly-conquered regions, andthat the proviso, under such circumstances, would be a useless taunt andwanton insult to the South. The famous sentence in which he said that he"would not take pains uselessly to reaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor toreënact the will of God, " was nothing but specious and brilliant rhetoric. It was perfectly easy to employ slaves in California, if the people had notprohibited it, and in New Mexico as well, even if there were no cotton norsugar nor rice plantations in either, and but little arable land in thelatter. There was a classic form of slave-labor possible in thosecountries. Any school-boy could have reminded Mr. Webster of

 "Seius whose eight hundred slaves Sicken in Ilva's mines. "

Mining was one of the oldest uses to which slave-labor had been applied, and it still flourished in Siberia as the occupation of serfs andcriminals. Mr. Webster, of course, was not ignorant of this very obviousfact; and that nature, therefore, instead of forbidding slave-labor in theMexican conquests, opened to it a new and almost unlimited field in aregion which is to-day one of the greatest mining countries in the world. Still less could he have failed to know that this form of employment forslaves was eagerly desired by the South; that the slave-holders fullyrecognized their opportunity, announced their intention of takingadvantage of it, and were particularly indignant at the action ofCalifornia because it had closed to them this inviting field. Mr. Clingmanof North Carolina, on January 22, when engaged in threatening war in orderto bring the North to terms, had said, in the House of Representatives:"But for the anti-slavery agitation our Southern slave-holders would havecarried their negroes into the mines of California in such numbers that Ihave no doubt but that the majority there would have made it aslave-holding State. "[1] At a later period Mr. Mason of Virginia declared, in the Senate, that he knew of no law of nature which excluded slavery fromCalifornia. "On the contrary, " he said, "if California had been organizedwith a territorial form of government only, the people of the SouthernStates would have gone there freely, and have taken their slaves there ingreat numbers. They would have done so because the value of the labor ofthat class would have been augmented to them many hundred fold. "[2] Thesewere the views of practical men and experienced slave-owners whorepresented the opinions of their constituents, and who believed thatdomestic slavery could be employed to advantage anywhere. Moreover, theSouthern leaders openly avowed their opposition to securing any region tofree labor exclusively, no matter what the ordinances of nature might be. In 1848, it must be remembered in this connection, Mr. Webster not onlyurged the limitation of slave area, and sustained the power of Congress toregulate this matter in the territories, but he did not resist the finalembodiment of the principle of the Wilmot Proviso in the bill for theorganization of Oregon, where the introduction of slavery was infinitelymore unlikely than in New Mexico. Cotton, sugar, and rice were excluded, perhaps, by nature from the Mexican conquests, but slavery was not. It wasworse than idle to allege that a law of nature forbade slaves in a countrywhere mines gaped to receive them. The facts are all as plain as possible, and there is no escape from the conclusion that in opposing the WilmotProviso, in 1850, Mr. Webster abandoned his principles as to the extensionof slavery. He practically stood forth as the champion of the Southernpolicy of letting the new territories alone, which could only result inplacing them in the grasp of slavery. The consistency which he labored sohard to prove in his speech was hopelessly shattered, and no ingenuity, either then or since, can restore it. 

[Footnote 1: _Congressional Globe_, 31st Congress, 1st Session, p. 203. ]

[Footnote 2: Ibid. , Appendix, p. 510. ]

A dispassionate examination of Mr. Webster's previous course on slavery, and a careful comparison of it with the ground taken in the 7th of Marchspeech, shows that he softened his utterances in regard to slavery as asystem, and that he changed radically on the policy of compromise and onthe question of extending the area of slavery. There is a confused storythat in the winter of 1847-48 he had given the anti-slavery leaders tounderstand that he proposed to come out on their ground in regard toMexico, and to sustain Corwin in his attack on the Democratic policy, butthat he failed to do so. The evidence on this point is entirelyinsufficient to make it of importance, but there can be no doubt that inthe winter of 1850 Mr. Webster talked with Mr. Giddings, and led him, andthe other Free-Soil leaders, to believe that he was meditating a stronganti-slavery speech. This fact was clearly shown in the recent newspapercontroversy which grew out of the celebration of the centennial anniversaryof Webster's birth. It is a little difficult to understand why thisincident should have roused such bitter resentment among Mr. Webster'ssurviving partisans. To suppose that Mr. Webster made the 7th of Marchspeech after long deliberation, without having a moment's hesitation in thematter, is to credit him with a shameless disregard of principle andconsistency, of which it is impossible to believe him guilty. Heundoubtedly hesitated, and considered deeply whether he should assume theattitude of 1833, and stand out unrelentingly against the encroachments ofslavery. He talked with Mr. Clay on one side. He talked with Mr. Giddings, and other Free-Soilers, on the other. With the latter the wish was nodoubt father to the thought, and they may well have imagined that Mr. Webster had determined to go with them, when he was still in doubt andmerely trying the various positions. There is no need, however, to lingerover matters of this sort. The change made by Mr. Webster can be learnedbest by careful study of his own utterances, and of his whole career. Yet, at the same time, the greatest trouble lies not in the shifting andinconsistency revealed by an examination of the specific points which havejust been discussed, but in the speech as a whole. In that speech Mr. Webster failed quite as much by omissions as by the opinions which heactually announced. He was silent when he should have spoken, and he spokewhen he should have held his peace. The speech, if exactly defined, is, inreality, a powerful effort, not for compromise or for the Fugitive SlaveLaw, or any other one thing, but to arrest the whole anti-slavery movement, and in that way put an end to the dangers which threatened the Union andrestore lasting harmony between the jarring sections. It was a mad project. Mr. Webster might as well have attempted to stay the incoming tide atMarshfield with a rampart of sand as to seek to check the anti-slaverymovement by a speech. Nevertheless, he produced a great effect. His mindonce made up, he spared nothing to win the cast. He gathered all hisforces; his great intellect, his splendid eloquence, his fame which hadbecome one of the treasured possessions of his country, --all were given tothe work. The blow fell with terrible force, and here, at last, we come tothe real mischief which was wrought. The 7th of March speech demoralizedNew England and the whole North. The abolitionists showed by bitter angerthe pain, disappointment, and dismay which this speech brought. TheFree-Soil party quivered and sank for the moment beneath the shock. Thewhole anti-slavery movement recoiled. The conservative reaction which Mr. Webster endeavored to produce came and triumphed. Chiefly by his exertionsthe compromise policy was accepted and sustained by the country. Theconservative elements everywhere rallied to his support, and by his abilityand eloquence it seemed as if he had prevailed and brought the people overto his opinions. It was a wonderful tribute to his power and influence, butthe triumph was hollow and short-lived. He had attempted to compass animpossibility. Nothing could kill the principles of human liberty, not evena speech by Daniel Webster, backed by all his intellect and knowledge, hiseloquence and his renown. The anti-slavery movement was checked for thetime, and pro-slavery democracy, the only other positive political force, reigned supreme. But amid the falling ruins of the Whig party, and theevanescent success of the Native Americans, the party of human rightsrevived; and when it rose again, taught by the trials and misfortunes of1850, it rose with a strength which Mr. Webster had never dreamed of, and, in 1856, polled nearly a million and a half of votes for Fremont. The riseand final triumph of the Republican party was the condemnation of the 7thof March speech and of the policy which put the government of the countryin the hands of Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. When the war came, inspiration was not found in the 7th of March speech. In that dark hour, men remembered the Daniel Webster who replied to Hayne, and turned awayfrom the man who had sought for peace by advocating the great compromise ofHenry Clay. 

The disapprobation and disappointment which were manifested in the Northafter the 7th of March speech could not be overlooked. Men thought and saidthat Mr. Webster had spoken in behalf of the South and of slavery. Whateverhis intentions may have been, this was what the speech seemed to mean andthis was its effect, and the North saw it more and more clearly as timewent on. Mr. Webster never indulged in personal attacks, but at the sametime he was too haughty a man ever to engage in an exchange of complimentsin debate. He never was in the habit of saying pleasant things to hisopponents in the Senate merely as a matter of agreeable courtesy. In thisdirection, as in its opposite, he usually maintained a cold silence. Buton the 7th of March he elaborately complimented Calhoun, and went out ofhis way to flatter Virginia and Mr. Mason personally. This struck closeobservers with surprise, but it was the real purpose of the speech whichwent home to the people of the North. He had advocated measures which withslight exceptions were altogether what the South wanted, and the South sounderstood it. On the 30th of March Mr. Morehead wrote to Mr. Crittendenthat Mr. Webster's appointment as Secretary of State would now be veryacceptable to the South. No more bitter commentary could have been made. The people were blinded and dazzled at first, but they gradually awoke andperceived the error that had been committed. 

Mr. Webster, however, needed nothing from outside to inform him as to hisconduct and its results. At the bottom of his heart and in the depths ofhis conscience he knew that he had made a dreadful mistake. He did notflinch. He went on in his new path without apparent faltering. His speechon the compromise measures went farther than that of the 7th of March. Butif we study his speeches and letters between 1850 and the day of his death, we can detect changes in them, which show plainly enough that the writerwas not at ease, that he was not master of that real conscience of which heboasted. 

His friends, after the first shock of surprise, rallied to his support, and he spoke frequently at union meetings, and undertook, by making immenseefforts, to convince the country that the compromise measures were rightand necessary, and that the doctrines of the 7th of March speech ought tobe sustained. In pursuance of this object, during the winter of 1850 andthe summer of the following year, he wrote several public letters on thecompromise measures, and he addressed great meetings on various occasions, in New England, New York, and as far south as Virginia. We are at oncestruck by a marked change in the character and tone of these speeches, which produced a great effect in establishing the compromise policy. It hadnever been Mr. Webster's habit to misrepresent or abuse his opponents. Nowhe confounded the extreme separatism of the abolitionists and theconstitutional opposition of the Free-Soil party, and involved allopponents of slavery in a common condemnation. It was wilfulmisrepresentation to talk of the Free-Soilers as if they were identicalwith the abolitionists, and no one knew better than Mr. Webster thedistinction between the two, one being ready to secede to get rid ofslavery, the other offering only a constitutional resistance to itsextension. His tone toward his opponents was correspondingly bitter. Whenhe first arrived in Boston, after his speech, and spoke to the great crowdin front of the Revere House, he said, "I shall support no agitationshaving their foundations in unreal, ghostly abstractions. " Slavery had nowbecome "an unreal, ghostly abstraction, " although it must still haveappeared to the negroes something very like a hard fact. There were men inthat crowd, too, who had not forgotten the noble words with which Mr. Webster in 1837 had defended the character of the opponents of slavery, andthe sound of this new gospel from his lips fell strangely on their ears. Sohe goes on from one union meeting to another, and in speech after speechthere is the same bitter tone which had been so foreign to him in all hisprevious utterances. The supporters of the anti-slavery movement hedenounces as insane. He reiterates his opposition to slave extension, andin the same breath argues that the Union must be preserved by giving way tothe South. The feeling is upon him that the old parties are breaking downunder the pressure of this "ghostly abstraction, " this agitation which hetries to prove to the young men of the country and to his fellow-citizenseverywhere is "wholly factitious. " The Fugitive Slave Law is not in theform which he wants, but still he defends it and supports it. The firstfruits of his policy of peace are seen in riots in Boston, and hepersonally advises with a Boston lawyer who has undertaken the casesagainst the fugitive slaves. It was undoubtedly his duty, as Mr. Curtissays, to enforce and support the law as the President's adviser, but hispersonal attention and interest were not required in slave cases, nor wouldthey have been given a year before. The Wilmot Proviso, that doctrine whichhe claimed as his own in 1847, when it was a sentiment on which Whigs couldnot differ, he now calls "a mere abstraction. " He struggles to put slaveryaside for the tariff, but it will not down at his bidding, and he himselfcannot leave it alone. Finally he concludes this compromise campaign with agreat speech on laying the foundation of the capitol extension, and makes apathetic appeal to the South to maintain the Union. They are not pleasantto read, these speeches in the Senate and before the people in behalf ofthe compromise policy. They are harsh and bitter; they do not ring true. Daniel Webster knew when he was delivering them that that was not the wayto save the Union, or that, at all events, it was not the right way for himto do it. 

The same peculiarity can be discerned in his letters. The fun and humorwhich had hitherto run through his correspondence seems now to fade away asif blighted. On September 10, 1850, he writes to Mr. Harvey that sinceMarch 7 there has not been an hour in which he has not felt a "crushingsense of anxiety and responsibility. " He couples this with the declarationthat his own part is acted and he is satisfied; but if his anxiety wassolely of a public nature, why did it date from March 7, when, prior tothat time, there was much greater cause for alarm than afterwards. Ineverything he said or wrote he continually recurs to the slavery questionand always in a defensive tone, usually with a sneer or a fling at theabolitionists and anti-slavery party. The spirit of unrest had seized him. He was disturbed and ill at ease. He never admitted it, even to himself, but his mind was not at peace, and he could not conceal the fact. Posteritycan see the evidences of it plainly enough, and a man of his intellect andfame knew that with posterity the final reckoning must be made. No man cansay that Mr. Webster anticipated the unfavorable judgment which hiscountrymen have passed upon his conduct, but that in his heart he fearedsuch a judgment cannot be doubted. 

It is impossible to determine with perfect accuracy any man's motives inwhat he says or does. They are so complex, they are so often undefined, even in the mind of the man himself, that no one can pretend to make anabsolutely correct analysis. There have been many theories as to themotives which led Mr. Webster to make the 7th of March speech. In the heatof contemporary strife his enemies set it down as a mere bid to secureSouthern support for the presidency, but this is a harsh and narrow view. The longing for the presidency weakened Mr. Webster as a public man fromthe time when it first took possession of him after the reply to Hayne. Itundoubtedly had a weakening effect upon him in the winter of 1850, and hadsome influence upon the speech of the 7th of March. But it is unjust to saythat it did more. It certainly was far removed from being a controllingmotive. His friends, on the other hand, declare that he was governed solelyby the highest and most disinterested patriotism, by the truest wisdom. This explanation, like that of his foes, fails by going too far and beingtoo simple. His motives were mixed. His chief desire was to preserve andmaintain the Union. He wished to stand forth as the great saviour andpacificator. On the one side was the South, compact, aggressive, boundtogether by slavery, the greatest political force in the country. On theother was a weak Free-Soil party, and a widely diffused and earnest moralsentiment without organization or tangible political power. Mr. Websterconcluded that the way to save the Union and the Constitution, and toachieve the success which he desired, was to go with the heaviestbattalions. He therefore espoused the Southern side, for the compromise wasin the Southern interest, and smote the anti-slavery movement with all hisstrength. He reasoned correctly that peace could come only by administeringa severe check to one of the two contending parties. He erred in attemptingto arrest the one which all modern history showed was irresistible. It isno doubt true, as appears by his cabinet opinion recently printed, that hestood ready to meet the first overt act on the part of the South withforce. Mr. Webster would not have hesitated to have struck hard at any bodyof men or any State which ventured to assail the Union. But he alsobelieved that the true way to prevent any overt act on the part of theSouth was by concession, and that was precisely the object which theSouthern leaders sought to obtain. We may grant all the patriotism and allthe sincere devotion to the cause of the Constitution which is claimed forhim, but nothing can acquit Mr. Webster of error in the methods which hechose to adopt for the maintenance of peace and the preservation of theUnion. If the 7th of March speech was right, then all that had gone beforewas false and wrong. In that speech he broke from his past, from his ownprinciples and from the principles of New England, and closed his splendidpublic career with a terrible mistake. 

CHAPTER X. 

THE LAST YEARS. 

The story of the remainder of Mr. Webster's public life, outside of andapart from the slavery question, can be quickly told. General Taylor diedsuddenly on July 9, 1850, and this event led to an immediate and completereorganization of the cabinet. Mr. Fillmore at once offered the post ofSecretary of State to Mr. Webster, who accepted it, resigned his seat inthe Senate, and, on July 23, assumed his new position. No great negotiationlike that with Lord Ashburton marked this second term of office in theDepartment of State, but there were a number of important and some verycomplicated affairs, which Mr. Webster managed with the wisdom, tact, anddignity which made him so admirably fit for this high position. 

The best-known incident of this period was that which gave rise to thefamous "Hülsemann letter. " President Taylor had sent an agent to Hungary toreport upon the condition of the revolutionary government, with theintention of recognizing it if there were sufficient grounds for doing so. When the agent arrived, the revolution was crushed, and he reported to thePresident against recognition. These papers were transmitted to the Senatein March, 1850. Mr. Hülsemann, the Austrian _chargé_, thereupon complainedof the action of our administration, and Mr. Clayton, then Secretary ofState, replied that the mission of the agent had been simply to gatherinformation. On receiving further instructions from his government, Mr. Hülsemann rejoined to Mr. Clayton, and it fell to Mr. Webster to reply, which he did on December 21, 1850. The note of the Austrian _chargé_ was ina hectoring and highly offensive tone, and Mr. Webster felt the necessityof administering a sharp rebuke. "The Hülsemann letter, " as it was called, was accordingly dispatched. It set forth strongly the right of the UnitedStates and their intention to recognize any _de facto_ revolutionarygovernment, and to seek information in all proper ways in order to guidetheir action. The argument on this point was admirably and forcibly stated, and it was accompanied by a bold vindication of the American policy, and bysome severe and wholesome reproof. Mr. Webster had two objects. One was toawaken the people of Europe to a sense of the greatness of this country, the other to touch the national pride at home. He did both. The foreignrepresentatives learned a lesson which they never forgot, and which openedtheir eyes to the fact that we were no longer colonies, and the nationalpride was also aroused. Mr. Webster admitted that the letter was, in somerespects, boastful and rough. This was a fair criticism, and it may bejustly said that such a tone was hardly worthy of the author. But, on theother hand, Hülsemann's impertinence fully justified such a reply, and alittle rough domineering was, perhaps, the very thing needed. It is certainthat the letter fully answered Mr. Webster's purpose, and excited a greatdeal of popular enthusiasm. The affair did not, however, end here. Mr. Hülsemann became very mild, but he soon lost his temper again. Kossuth andthe refugees in Turkey were brought to this country in a United Statesfrigate. The Hungarian hero was received with a burst of enthusiasm thatinduced him to hope for substantial aid, which was, of course, whollyvisionary. The popular excitement made it difficult for Mr. Webster tosteer a proper course, but he succeeded, by great tact, in showing his ownsympathy, and, so far as possible, that of the government, for the cause ofHungarian independence and for its leader, without going too far orcommitting any indiscretion which could justify a breach of internationalrelations with Austria. Mr. Webster's course, including a speech at adinner in Boston, in which he made an eloquent allusion to Hungary andKossuth, although carefully guarded, aroused the ire of Mr. Hülsemann, wholeft the country, after writing a letter of indignant farewell to theSecretary of State. Mr. Webster replied, through Mr. Hunter, with extremecoolness, confining himself to an approval of the gentleman selected by Mr. Hülsemann to represent Austria after the latter's departure. 

The other affairs which occupied Mr. Webster's official attention at thistime made less noise than that with Austria, but they were more complicatedand some of them far more perilous to the peace of the country. The mostimportant was that growing out of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty in regard tothe neutrality of the contemplated canal in Nicaragua. This led to aprolonged correspondence about the protectorate of Great Britain inNicaragua, and to a withdrawal of her claim to exact port-charges. It isinteresting to observe the influence which Mr. Webster at once obtainedwith Sir Henry Bulwer and the respect in which he was held by thatexperienced diplomatist. Besides this discussion with England, there was asharp dispute with Mexico about the right of way over the Isthmus ofTehuantepec, and the troubles on the Texan boundary before Congress hadacted upon the subject. Then came the Lopez invasion of Cuba, supported bybodies of volunteers enlisted in the United States, which, by its failureand its results, involved our government in a number of difficultquestions. The most serious was the riot at New Orleans, where the Spanishconsulate was sacked by a mob. To render due reparation for this outragewithout wounding the national pride by apparent humiliation was no easytask. Mr. Webster settled everything, however, with a judgment, tact, anddignity which prevented war with Spain and yet excited no resentment athome. At a later period, when the Kossuth affair was drawing to an end, theperennial difficulty about the fisheries revived and was added to ourCentral American troubles with Great Britain, and this, together with theaffair of the Lobos Islands, occupied Mr. Webster's attention, and drewforth some able and important dispatches during the summer of 1852, in thelast months of his life. 

While the struggle was in progress to convince the country of the value andjustice of the compromise measures and to compel their acceptance, anotherpresidential election drew on. It was the signal for the last desperateattempt to obtain the Whig nomination for Mr. Webster, and it seemed atfirst sight as if the party must finally take up the New England leader. Mr. Clay was wholly out of the race, and his last hour was near. There wasabsolutely no one who, in fame, ability, public services, and experiencecould be compared for one moment with Mr. Webster. The opportunity wasobvious enough; it awakened all Mr. Webster's hopes, and excited the ardorof his friends. A formal and organized movement, such as had never beforebeen made, was set on foot to promote his candidacy, and a vigorous andearnest address to the people was issued by his friends in Massachusetts. The result demonstrated, if demonstration were needed, that Mr. Webster hadnot, even under the most favorable circumstances, the remotest chance forthe presidency. His friends saw this plainly enough before the conventionmet, but he himself regarded the great prize as at last surely within hisgrasp. Mr. Choate, who was to lead the Webster delegates, went toWashington the day before the convention assembled. He called on Mr. Webster and found him so filled with the belief that he should be nominatedthat it seemed cruel to undeceive him. Mr. Choate, at all events, had notthe heart for the task, and went back to Baltimore to lead the forlorn hopewith gallant fidelity and with an eloquence as brilliant if not so grand asthat of Mr. Webster himself. A majority[1] of the convention divided theirvotes very unequally between Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Webster, the formerreceiving 133, the latter 29, on the first ballot, while General Scott had131. Forty-five ballots were taken, without any substantial change, andthen General Scott began to increase his strength, and was nominated on thefifty-third ballot, receiving 159 votes. Most of General Scott's supporterswere opposed to resolutions sustaining the compromise measures, whilethose who voted for Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Webster favored that policy. General Scott owed his nomination to a compromise, which consisted ininserting in the platform a clause strongly approving Mr. Clay's measures. Mr. Webster expected the Fillmore delegates to come to him, an unlikelyevent when they were so much more numerous than his friends, and, moreover, they never showed the slightest inclination to do so. They were chieflyfrom the South, and as they chose to consider Mr. Fillmore and not hissecretary the representative of compromise, they reasonably enough expectedthe latter to give way. The desperate stubbornness of Mr. Webster'sadherents resulted in the nomination of Scott. It seemed hard that theSouthern Whigs should have done so little for Mr. Webster after he had doneand sacrificed so much to advance and defend their interests. But the Southwas practical. In the 7th of March speech they had got from Mr. Webster allthey could expect or desire. It was quite possible, in fact it was highlyprobable, that, once in the presidency, he could not be controlled orguided by the slave-power or by any other sectional influence. Mr. Fillmore, inferior in every way to Mr. Webster in intellect, in force, inreputation, would give them a mild, safe administration and be easilyinfluenced by the South. Mr. Webster had served his turn, and the menwhose cause he had advocated and whose interests he had protected cast himaside. 

[Footnote 1: Mr. Curtis says a "great majority continued to divide theirvotes between Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Webster. " The highest number reached bythe combined Webster and Fillmore votes, on any one ballot, was 162, threemore than was received on the last ballot by General Scott, who, Mr. Curtiscorrectly says, obtained only a "few votes more than the necessarymajority. "]

The loss of the nomination was a bitter disappointment to Mr. Webster. Itwas the fashion in certain quarters to declare that it killed him, but thiswas manifestly absurd. The most that can be said in this respect was, thatthe excitement and depression caused by his defeat preyed upon his mind andthereby facilitated the inroads of disease, while it added to the cloudswhich darkened round him in those last days. But his course of action afterthe convention cannot be passed over without comment. He refused to givehis adhesion to General Scott's nomination, and he advised his friends tovote for Mr. Pierce, because the Whigs were divided, while the Democratswere unanimously determined to resist all attempts to renew the slaveryagitation. This course was absolutely indefensible. If the Whig party wasso divided on the slavery question that Mr. Webster could not support theirnominee, then he had no business to seek a nomination at their hands, forthey were as much divided before the convention as afterwards. He chose tocome before that convention, knowing perfectly well the divisions of theparty, and that the nomination might fall to General Scott. He saw fit toplay the game, and was in honor bound to abide by the rules. He had noright to say "it is heads I win, and tails you lose. " If he had beennominated he would have indignantly and justly denounced a refusal on thepart of General Scott and his friends to support him. It is the merestsophistry to say that Mr. Webster was too great a man to be bound by partyusages, and that he owed it to himself to rise above them, and refuse hissupport to a poor nomination and to a wrangling party. If Mr. Webster couldno longer act with the Whigs, then his name had no business in thatconvention at Baltimore, for the conditions were the same before itsmeeting as afterward. Great man as he was, he was not too great to behavehonorably; and his refusal to support Scott, after having been his rivalfor a nomination at the hands of their common party, was neither honorablenor just. If Mr. Webster had decided to leave the Whigs and actindependently, he was in honor bound to do so before the Baltimoreconvention assembled, or to have warned the delegates that such was hisintention in the event of General Scott's nomination. He had no right tostand the hazard of the die, and then refuse to abide by the result. TheWhig party, in its best estate, was not calculated to excite a very warmenthusiasm in the breast of a dispassionate posterity, and it is perfectlytrue that it was on the eve of ruin in 1852. But it appeared better then, in the point of self-respect, than four years before. In 1848 the Whigsnominated a successful soldier conspicuous only for his availability andwithout knowing to what party he belonged. They maintained absolutesilence on the great question of the extension of slavery, and carried ontheir campaign on the personal popularity of their candidate. Mr. Websterwas righteously disgusted at their candidate and their negative attitude. He could justly and properly have left them on a question of principle; buthe swallowed the nomination, "not fit to be made, " and gave to his party adecided and public support. In 1852 the Whigs nominated another successfulsoldier, who was known to be a Whig, and who had been a candidate for theirnomination before. In their platform they formally adopted the essentialprinciple demanded by Mr. Webster, and declared their adhesion to thecompromise measures. If there was disaffection in regard to thisdeclaration of 1852, there was disaffection also about the silence of 1848. In the former case, Mr. Webster adhered to the nomination; in the latter, he rejected it. In 1848 he might still hope to be President through a Whignomination. In 1852 he knew that, even if he lived, there would never beanother chance. He gave vent to his disappointment, put no constraint uponhimself, prophesied the downfall of his party, and advised his friends tovote for Franklin Pierce. It was perfectly logical, after advocating thecompromise measures, to advise giving the government into the hands of aparty controlled by the South. Mr. Webster would have been entirelyreasonable in taking such a course before the Baltimore convention. He hadno right to do so after he had sought a nomination from the Whigs, and itwas a breach of faith to act as he did, to advise his friends to desert afalling party and vote for the Democratic candidate. 

After the acceptance of the Department of State, Mr. Webster's healthbecame seriously impaired. His exertions in advocating the compromisemeasures, his official labors, and the increased severity of his annualhay-fever, --all contributed to debilitate him. His iron constitutionweakened in various ways, and especially by frequent periods of intensemental exertion, to which were superadded the excitement and nervous straininseparable from his career, was beginning to give way. Slowly but surelyhe lost ground. His spirits began to lose their elasticity, and he rarelyspoke without a tinge of deep sadness being apparent in all he said. InMay, 1852, while driving near Marshfield, he was thrown from his carriagewith much violence, injuring his wrists, and receiving other severecontusions. The shock was very great, and undoubtedly accelerated theprogress of the fatal organic disease which was sapping his life. Thisphysical injury was followed by the keen disappointment of his defeat atBaltimore, which preyed upon his heart and mind. During the summer of 1852his health gave way more rapidly. He longed to resign, but Mr. Fillmoreinsisted on his retaining his office. In July he came to Boston, where hewas welcomed by a great public meeting, and hailed with enthusiasticacclamations, which did much to soothe his wounded feelings. He stillcontinued to transact the business of his department, and in August went toWashington, where he remained until the 8th of September, when he returnedto Marshfield. On the 20th he went to Boston, for the last time, to consulthis physician. He appeared at a friend's house, one evening, for a fewmoments, and all who then saw him were shocked at the look of illness andsuffering in his face. It was his last visit. He went back to Marshfieldthe next day, never to return. He now failed rapidly. His nights weresleepless, and there were scarcely any intervals of ease or improvement. The decline was steady and sure, and as October wore away the end drewnear. Mr. Webster faced it with courage, cheerfulness, and dignity, in areligious and trusting spirit, with a touch of the personal pride which waspart of his nature. He remained perfectly conscious and clear in his mindalmost to the very last moment, bearing his sufferings with perfectfortitude, and exhibiting the tenderest affection toward the wife and sonand friends who watched over him. On the evening of October 23 it becameapparent that he was sinking, but his one wish seemed to be that he mightbe conscious when he was actually dying. After midnight he roused from anuneasy sleep, struggled for consciousness, and ejaculated, "I still live. "These were his last words. Shortly after three o'clock the laboredbreathing ceased, and all was over. 

A hush fell upon the country as the news of his death sped over the land. Agreat gap seemed to have been made in the existence of every one. Menremembered the grandeur of his form and the splendor of his intellect, andfelt as if one of the pillars of the state had fallen. The profound griefand deep sense of loss produced by his death were the highest tributes andthe most convincing proofs of his greatness. 

In accordance with his wishes, all public forms and ceremonies weredispensed with. The funeral took place at his home on Friday, October 29. Thousands flocked to Marshfield to do honor to his memory, and to look forthe last time at that noble form. It was one of those beautiful days of theNew England autumn, when the sun is slightly veiled, and a delicate hazehangs over the sea, shining with a tender silvery light. There is a senseof infinite rest and peace on such a day which seems to shut out the noiseof the busy world and breathe the spirit of unbroken calm. As the crowdspoured in through the gates of the farm, they saw before them on the lawn, resting upon a low mound of flowers, the majestic form, as impressive inthe repose of death as it had been in the fullness of life and strength. There was a wonderful fitness in it all. The vault of heaven and thespacious earth seemed in their large simplicity the true place for such aman to lie in state. There was a brief and simple service at the house, andthen the body was borne on the shoulders of Marshfield farmers, and laid inthe little graveyard which already held the wife and children who had gonebefore, and where could be heard the eternal murmur of the sea. 

 * * * * *

In May, 1852, Mr. Webster said to Professor Silliman: "I have given my lifeto law and politics. Law is uncertain and politics are utterly vain. " It isa sad commentary for such a man to have made on such a career, but it fitlyrepresents Mr. Webster's feelings as the end of life approached. His lastyears were not his most fortunate, and still less his best years. Domesticsorrows had been the prelude to a change of policy, which had aroused abitter opposition, and to the pangs of disappointed ambition. A sense ofmistake and failure hung heavily upon his spirits, and the cry of "vanity, vanity, all is vanity, " came readily to his lips. There is an infinitepathos in those melancholy words which have just been quoted. The sun oflife, which had shone so splendidly at its meridian, was setting amidclouds. The darkness which overspread him came from the action of the 7thof March, and the conflict which it had caused. If there were failure andmistake they were there. The presidency could add nothing, its loss couldtake away nothing from the fame of Daniel Webster. He longed for iteagerly; he had sacrificed much to his desire for it; his disappointmentwas keen and bitter at not receiving what seemed to him the fit crown ofhis great public career. But this grief was purely personal, and will notbe shared by posterity, who feel only the errors of those last years comingafter so much glory, and who care very little for the defeat of theambition which went with them. 

Those last two years awakened such fierce disputes, and had such anabsorbing interest, that they have tended to overshadow the half century ofdistinction and achievement which preceded them. Failure and disappointmenton the part of such a man as Webster seem so great, that they too easilydwarf everything else, and hide from us a just and well proportioned viewof the whole career. Mr. Webster's success had, in truth, been brilliant, hardly equalled in measure or duration by that of any other eminent man inour history. For thirty years he had stood at the head of the bar and ofthe Senate, the first lawyer and the first statesman of the United States. This is a long tenure of power for one man in two distinct departments. Itwould be remarkable anywhere. It is especially so in a democracy. Thisgreat success Mr. Webster owed solely to his intellectual powersupplemented by great physical gifts. No man ever was born into the worldbetter formed by nature for the career of an orator and statesman. He hadeverything to compel the admiration and submission of his fellow-men:--

 "The front of Jove himself; An eye like Mars to threaten and command; A station like the herald Mercury New-lighted on a heaven-kissing hill; A combination and a form indeed, Where every god did seem to set his seal, To give the world assurance of a man. "

Hamlet's words are a perfect picture of Mr. Webster's outer man, and wehave but to add to the description a voice of singular beauty and powerwith the tone and compass of an organ. The look of his face and the soundof his voice were in themselves as eloquent as anything Mr. Webster everuttered. 

But the imposing presence was only the outward sign of the man. Within wasa massive and powerful intellect, not creative or ingenious, but with awonderful vigor of grasp, capacious, penetrating, far-reaching. Mr. Webster's strongest and most characteristic mental qualities were weightand force. He was peculiarly fitted to deal with large subjects in a largeway. He was by temperament extremely conservative. There was nothing of thereformer or the zealot about him. He could maintain or construct whereother men had built; he could not lay new foundations or invent. We seethis curiously exemplified in his feeling toward Hamilton and Madison. Headmired them both, and to the former he paid a compliment which has becomea familiar quotation. But Hamilton's bold, aggressive genius, his audacity, fertility, and resource, did not appeal to Mr. Webster as did the prudence, the constructive wisdom, and the safe conservatism of the gentle Madison, whom he never wearied of praising. The same description may be given of hisimagination, which was warm, vigorous, and keen, but not poetic. He used itwell, it never led him astray, and was the secret of his most conspicuousoratorical triumphs. 

He had great natural pride and a strong sense of personal dignity, whichmade him always impressive, but apparently cold, and sometimes solemn inpublic. In his later years this solemnity degenerated occasionally intopomposity, to which it is always perilously near. At no time in his lifewas he quick or excitable. He was indolent and dreamy, working always underpressure, and then at a high rate of speed. This indolence increased as hegrew older; he would then postpone longer and labor more intensely to makeup the lost time than in his earlier days. When he was quiescent, he seemedstern, cold, and latterly rather heavy, and some outer incentive was neededto rouse his intellect or touch his heart. Once stirred, he blazed forth, and, when fairly engaged, with his intellect in full play, he was as grandand effective in his eloquence as it is given to human nature to be. In theless exciting occupations of public life, as, for instance, in foreignnegotiations, he showed the same grip upon his subject, the same capacityand judgment as in his speeches, and a mingling of tact and dignity whichproved the greatest fitness for the conduct of the gravest public affairs. As a statesman Mr. Webster was not an "opportunist, " as it is the fashionto call those who live politically from day to day, dealing with eachquestion as it arises, and exhibiting often the greatest skill and talent. Still less was he a statesman of the type of Charles Fox, who preached tothe deaf ears of one generation great principles which became acceptedtruisms in the next. Mr. Webster stands between the two classes. He viewedthe present with a strong perception of the future, and shaped his policynot merely for the daily exigency, but with a keen eye to subsequenteffects. At the same time he never put forward and defended single-handed agreat principle or idea which, neglected then, was gradually to win its wayand reign supreme among a succeeding generation. 

His speeches have a heat and glow which we can still feel, and a depth andreality of thought which have secured them a place in literature. He hadnot a fiery nature, although there is often so much warmth in what he said. He was neither high tempered nor quick to anger, but he could be fierce, and, when adulation had warped him in those later years, he was capable ofstriking ugly blows which sometimes wounded friends as well as enemies. 

There remains one marked quality to be noticed in Mr. Webster, which was ofimmense negative service to him. This was his sense of humor. Mr. Nichol, in his recent history of American literature, speaks of Mr. Webster asdeficient in this respect. Either the critic himself is deficient in humoror he has studied only Webster's collected works, which give no indicationof the real humor in the man. That Mr. Webster was not a humorist isunquestionably true, and although he used a sarcasm which made hisopponents seem absurd and even ridiculous at times, and in his moreunstudied efforts would provoke mirth by some happy and playful allusion, some felicitous quotation or ingenious antithesis, he was too stately inevery essential respect ever to seek to make mere fun or to excite thelaughter of his hearers by deliberate exertions and with maliceaforethought. He had, nevertheless, a real and genuine sense of humor. Wecan see it in his letters, and it comes out in a thousand ways in thedetails and incidents of his private life. When he had thrown aside thecares of professional or public business, he revelled in hearty, boisterousfun, and he had that sanest of qualities, an honest, boyish love of purenonsense. He delighted in a good story and dearly loved a joke, althoughno jester himself. This sense of humor and appreciation of the ridiculous, although they give no color to his published works, where, indeed, theywould have been out of place, improved his judgment, smoothed his paththrough the world, and saved him from those blunders in taste and thosefollies in action which are ever the pitfalls for men with the fervid, oratorical temperament. 

This sense of humor gave, also, a great charm to his conversation and toall social intercourse with him. He was a good, but never, so far as can bejudged from tradition, an overbearing talker. He never appears to havecrushed opposition in conversation, nor to have indulged in monologue, which is so apt to be the foible of famous and successful men who have asolemn sense of their own dignity and importance. What Lord Melbourne saidof the great Whig historian, "that he wished he was as sure of anything asTom Macaulay was of everything, " could not be applied to Mr. Webster. Heowed his freedom from such a weakness partly, no doubt, to his naturalindolence, but still more to the fact that he was not only no pedant, butnot even a very learned man. He knew no Greek, but was familiar with Latin. His quotations and allusions were chiefly drawn from Shakespeare, Milton, Homer, and the Bible, where he found what most appealed to him--simplicityand grandeur of thought and diction. At the same time, he was a greatreader, and possessed wide information on a vast variety of subjects, whicha clear and retentive memory put always at his command. The result of allthis was that he was a most charming and entertaining companion. 

These attractions were heightened by his large nature and strong animalspirits. He loved outdoor life. He was a keen sportsman and skilfulfisherman. In all these ways he was healthy and manly, without any tinge ofthe mere student or public official. He loved everything that was large. His soul expanded in the free air and beneath the blue sky. All naturalscenery appealed to him, --Niagara, the mountains, the rolling prairie, thegreat rivers, --but he found most contentment beside the limitless sea, amidbrown marshes and sand-dunes, where the sense of infinite space isstrongest. It was the same in regard to animals. He cared but little forhorses or dogs, but he rejoiced in great herds of cattle, and especially infine oxen, the embodiment of slow and massive strength. In England thethings which chiefly appealed to him were the Tower of London, WestminsterAbbey, Smithfield cattle market, and English agriculture. So it was alwaysand everywhere. He loved mountains and great trees, wide horizons, theocean, the western plains, and the giant monuments of literature and art. He rejoiced in his strength and the overflowing animal vigor that was inhim. He was so big and so strong, so large in every way, that people sankinto repose in his presence, and felt rest and confidence in the mere factof his existence. He came to be regarded as an institution, and when hedied men paused with a sense of helplessness, and wondered how the countrywould get on without him. To have filled so large a space in a country sovast, and in a great, hurrying, and pushing democracy, implies apersonality of a most uncommon kind. 

He was, too, something more than a charming companion in private life. Hewas generous, liberal, hospitable, and deeply affectionate. He was adoredin his home, and deeply loved his children, who were torn from him, oneafter another. His sorrow, like his joy, was intense and full of force. Hehad many devoted friends, and a still greater body of unhesitatingfollowers. To the former he showed, through nearly all his life, the warmaffection which was natural to him. It was not until adulation and flatteryhad deeply injured him, and the frustrated ambition for the presidency hadpoisoned both heart and mind, that he became dictatorial and overbearing. Not till then did he quarrel with those who had served and followed him, aswhen he slighted Mr. Lawrence for expressing independent opinions, andrefused to do justice to the memory of Story because it might impair hisown glories. They do not present a pleasant picture, these quarrels withfriends, but they were part of the deterioration of the last years, andthey furnish in a certain way the key to his failure to attain thepresidency. The country was proud of Mr. Webster; proud of his intellect, his eloquence, his fame. He was the idol of the capitalists, the merchants, the lawyers, the clergy, the educated men of all classes in the East. Thepoliticians dreaded and feared him because he was so great, and so littlein sympathy with them, but his real weakness was with the masses of thepeople. He was not popular in the true sense of the word. For years theWhig party and Henry Clay were almost synonymous terms, but this couldnever be said of Mr. Webster. His following was strong in quality, but weaknumerically. Clay touched the popular heart. Webster never did. The peoplewere proud of him, wondered at him, were awed by him, but they did not lovehim, and that was the reason he was never President, for he was too greatto succeed to the high office, as many men have, by happy or unhappyaccident. There was also another feeling which is suggested by thedifferences with some of his closest friends. There was a lurking distrustof Mr. Webster's sincerity. We can see it plainly in the correspondence ofthe Western Whigs, who were not, perhaps, wholly impartial. But it existed, nevertheless. There was a vague, ill-defined feeling of doubt in thepublic mind; a suspicion that the spirit of the advocate was the rulingspirit in Mr. Webster, and that he did not believe with absolute andfervent faith in one side of any question. There was just enoughcorrectness, just a sufficient grain of truth in this idea, when unitedwith the coldness and dignity of his manner and with his greatness itself, to render impossible that popularity which, to be real and lasting in ademocracy, must come from the heart and not from the head of the people, which must be instinctive and emotional, and not the offspring of reason. 

There is no occasion to discuss, or hold up to reprobation, Mr. Webster'sfailings. He was a splendid animal as well as a great man, and he hadstrong passions and appetites, which he indulged at times to the detrimentof his health and reputation. These errors may be mostly fitly consigned tosilence. But there was one failing which cannot be passed over in this way. This was in regard to money. His indifference to debt was perceptible inhis youth, and for many years showed no sign of growth. But in his lateryears it increased with terrible rapidity. He earned twenty thousand a yearwhen he first came to Boston, --a very great income for those days. Hispublic career interfered, of course, with his law practice, but there neverwas a period when he could not, with reasonable economy, have laid upsomething at the end of every year, and gradually amassed a fortune. Buthe not only never saved, he lived habitually beyond his means. He did notbecome poor by his devotion to the public service, but by his ownextravagance. He loved to spend money and to live well. He had a finelibrary and handsome plate; he bought fancy cattle; he kept open house, andindulged in that most expensive of all luxuries, "gentleman-farming. " Henever stinted himself in any way, and he gave away money with recklessgenerosity and heedless profusion, often not stopping to inquire who therecipient of his bounty might be. The result was debt; then subscriptionsamong his friends to pay his debts; then a fresh start and more debts, andmore subscriptions and funds for his benefit, and gifts of money for histable, and checks or notes for several thousand dollars in token ofadmiration of the 7th of March speech. [1] This was, of course, utterlywrong and demoralizing, but Mr. Webster came, after a time, to look uponsuch transactions as natural and proper. In the Ingersoll debate, Mr. Yancey accused him of being in the pay of the New England manufacturers, and his biographer has replied to the charge at length. That Mr. Websterwas in the pay of the manufacturers in the sense that they hired him, andbade him do certain things, is absurd. That he was maintained and supportedin a large degree by New England manufacturers and capitalists cannot bequestioned; but his attitude toward them was not that of servant anddependent. He seems to have regarded the merchants and bankers of StateStreet very much as a feudal baron regarded his peasantry. It was theirprivilege and duty to support him, and he repaid them with an occasionalmagnificent compliment. The result was that he lived in debt and diedinsolvent, and this was not the position which such a man as Daniel Webstershould have occupied. 

[Footnote 1: The story of the gift of ten thousand dollars in token ofadmiration of the 7th of March speech, referred to by Dr. Von Holst(_Const. Hist. Of the United States_) may be found in a volume entitled, _In Memoriam, B. Ogle Tayloe_, p. 109, and is as follows: "My opulent andmunificent friend and neighbor Mr. William W. Corcoran, " says Mr. Tayloe, "after the perusal of Webster's celebrated March speech in defence of theConstitution and of Southern rights, inclosed to Mrs. Webster her husband'snote for ten thousand dollars given him for a loan to that amount. Mr. Webster met Mr. Corcoran the same evening, at the President's, and thankedhim for the 'princely favor. ' Next day he addressed to Mr. Corcoran aletter of thanks which I read at Mr. Corcoran's request. " This version issubstantially correct. The morning of March 8 Mr. Corcoran inclosed with aletter of congratulation some notes of Mr. Webster's amounting to some sixthousand dollars. Reflecting that this was not a very solid tribute, heopened his letter and put in a check for a thousand dollars, and sent thenotes and the check to Mr. Webster, who wrote him a letter expressing hisgratitude, which Mr. Tayloe doubtless saw, and which is still in existence. I give the facts in this way because Mr. George T. Curtis, in a newspaperinterview, referring to an article of mine in the _Atlantic Monthly_, said, "With regard to the story of the ten thousand dollar check, which story Mr. Lodge gives us to understand he found in the pages of that very credulouswriter Dr. Von Holst, although I have not looked into his volumes to seewhether he makes the charge, I have only to say that I never heard of suchan occurrence before, and that it would require the oath of a very crediblewitness to the fact to make me believe it. " I may add that I have taken thetrouble not only to look into Dr. Von Holst's volumes but to examine thewhole matter thoroughly. The proof is absolute and indeed it is notnecessary to go beyond Mr. Webster's own letter of acknowledgment in searchof evidence, were there the slightest reason to doubt the substantialcorrectness of Mr. Tayloe's statement. The point is a small one, but astatement of fact, if questioned, ought always to be sustained orwithdrawn. ]

He showed the same indifference to the source of supplies of money in otherways. He took a fee from Wheelock, and then deserted him. He came down toSalem to prosecute a murderer, and the opposing counsel objected that hewas brought there to hurry the jury beyond the law and the evidence, and itwas even murmured audibly in the court-room that he had a fee from therelatives of the murdered man in his pocket. A fee of that sort hecertainly received either then or afterwards. Every ugly public attack thatwas made upon him related to money, and it is painful that the biographerof such a man as Webster should be compelled to give many pages to showthat his hero was not in the pay of manufacturers, and did not receive abribe in carrying out the provisions of the treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo. The refutation may be perfectly successful, but there ought to have been noneed of it. The reputation of a man like Mr. Webster in money mattersshould have been so far above suspicion that no one would have dreamed ofattacking it. Debts and subscriptions bred the idea that there might beworse behind, and although there is no reason to believe that such was thecase, these things are of themselves deplorable enough. 

When Mr. Webster failed it was a moral failure. His moral character was notequal to his intellectual force. All the errors he ever committed, whetherin public or in private life, in political action or in regard to moneyobligations, came from moral weakness. He was deficient in that intensityof conviction which carries men beyond and above all triumphs ofstatesmanship, and makes them the embodiment of the great moral forceswhich move the world. If Mr. Webster's moral power had equalled hisintellectual greatness, he would have had no rival in our history. But thiscombination and balance are so rare that they are hardly to be found inperfection among the sons of men. The very fact of his greatness made hisfailings all the more dangerous and unfortunate. To be blinded by thesplendor of his fame and the lustre of his achievements and prate about thesin of belittling a great man is the falsest philosophy and the meanestcant. The only thing worth having, in history as in life, is truth; and wedo wrong to our past, to ourselves, and to our posterity if we do notstrive to render simple justice always. We can forgive the errors andsorrow for the faults of our great ones gone; we cannot afford to hide orforget their shortcomings. 

But after all has been said, the question of most interest is, what Mr. Webster represented, what he effected, and what he means in our history. The answer is simple. He stands to-day as the preëminent champion andexponent of nationality. He said once, "there are no Alleghanies in mypolitics, " and he spoke the exact truth. Mr. Webster was thoroughlynational. There is no taint of sectionalism or narrow local prejudice abouthim. He towers up as an American, a citizen of the United States in thefullest sense of the word. He did not invent the Union, or discover thedoctrine of nationality. But he found the great fact and the greatprinciple ready to his hand, and he lifted them up, and preached the gospelof nationality throughout the length and breadth of the land. In hisfidelity to this cause he never wavered nor faltered. From the first burstof boyish oratory to the sleepless nights at Marshfield, when, waiting fordeath, he looked through the window at the light which showed him thenational flag fluttering from its staff, his first thought was of a unitedcountry. To his large nature the Union appealed powerfully by the meresense of magnitude which it conveyed. The vision of future empire, thedream of the destiny of an unbroken union touched and kindled hisimagination. He could hardly speak in public without an allusion to thegrandeur of American nationality, and a fervent appeal to keep it sacredand intact. For fifty years, with reiteration ever more frequent, sometimes with rich elaboration, sometimes with brief and simple allusion, he poured this message into the ears of a listening people. His wordspassed into text-books, and became the first declamations of school-boys. They were in every one's mouth. They sank into the hearts of the people, and became unconsciously a part of their life and daily thoughts. When thehour came, it was love for the Union and the sentiment of nationality whichnerved the arm of the North, and sustained her courage. That love had beenfostered, and that sentiment had been strengthened and vivified by the lifeand words of Webster. No one had done so much, or had so large a share inthis momentous task. Here lies the debt which the American people owe toWebster, and here is his meaning and importance in his own time and to usto-day. His career, his intellect, and his achievements are inseparablyconnected with the maintenance of a great empire, and the fortunes of agreat people. So long as English oratory is read or studied, so long willhis speeches stand high in literature. So long as the Union of these Statesendures, or holds a place in history, will the name of Daniel Webster behonored and remembered, and his stately eloquence find an echo in thehearts of his countrymen. 

INDEX. 

Aberdeen, Lord, succeeds Lord Palmerston as Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 252; offers forty-ninth parallel, in accordance with Mr. Webster's suggestion, 266. 

Adams, John, in Massachusetts Convention, 111; letter to Webster on Plymouth oration, 123; eulogy on, 125; supposed speech of, 126. 

Adams, John Quincy, most conspicuous man in New England, 129; opposed to Greek mission, 135; opinion of Webster's speech against tariff of 1824, 136; elected President, 137, 149; anxious for success of Panama mission, 140; message on Georgia and Creek Indians, 142; Webster's opposition to, 145; bitter tone toward Webster in Edwards's affair, 147; interview with Webster, 148, 149; conciliates Webster, 149; real hostility to Webster, 150; defeated for presidency, 151; comment on eulogy on Adams and Jefferson, 153; compared with Webster as an orator, 201; opinion of reply to Hayne, 206; opinion of Mr. Webster's attitude toward the South in 1838, 285. 

Ames, Fisher, compared with Webster as an orator, 201. 

Appleton, Julia Webster, daughter of Mr. Webster, death of, 271. 

Ashburton, Lord, appointed special commissioner, 251; arrives in Washington, 253; negotiation with Mr. Webster, 255 ff. ; attacked by Lord Palmerston, 259. 

Ashmun, George, defends Mr. Webster, 269. 

Atkinson, Edward, summary of Mr. Webster's tariff speech of 1824, 163-165. 

Bacourt, M. De, French Minister, description of Harrison's reception of diplomatic corps, 245. 

Baltimore, Whig Convention at, 338. 

Bank of the United States, debate on establishment, and defeat of, in 1814-15, 62; established, 66; beginning of attack on, 208. 

Bartlett, Ichabod, counsel for State against College, 79; attack on Mr. Webster, 80. 

Bell, Samuel, remarks to Webster before reply to Hayne, 178. 

Bellamy, Dr. , early opponent of Eleazer Wheelock, 75. 

Benton, Thomas H. , account of Mr. Webster in 1833, 219, 220; error in view of Webster, 221; fails in first attempt to carry expunging resolution, 232; carries second expunging resolution, 234; attacks Ashburton treaty, 257; supports Taylor's policy in 1850, 312. 

Bocanegra, M. De, Webster's correspondence with, 260. 

"Boston Memorial, " 275. 

Bosworth, Mr. , junior counsel in Rhode Island case, 105. 

Brown, Rev. Francis, elected president of Dartmouth College, 78; refuses to obey new board of trustees, 79; writes to Webster as to state of public opinion, 94. 

Buchanan, James, taunts Mr. Clay, 251; attacks Ashburton treaty, 257. 

Bulwer, Sir Henry, respect for Mr. Webster, 336. 

Burke, Edmund, Webster compared with as an orator, 199, 202, 203. 

Calhoun, John C. , speech in favor of repealing embargo, 53; sustains double duties, 55, 157; asks Webster's assistance to establish a bank, 63; introduces bill to compel revenue to be collected in specie, 66; internal improvement bill of, 68; visit to Webster, who regards him as his choice for President, 130-145; misleads Webster as to Greek mission, 135; author of exposition and protest, 171; presides over debate on Foote's resolution, 172; compared with Webster as an orator, 201; resigns vice-presidency and returns as Senator to support nullification, 212; alarmed at Jackson's attitude and at Force Bill, 214; consults Clay, 215; nullification speech on Force Bill, 215; merits of speech, 216; supports compromise, 219; alliance with Clay, 222; and Webster, 226; attitude in regard to France, 230; change on bank question, 236; accepts secretaryship of state to bring about annexation of Texas, 263; moves that anti-slavery petitions be not received, 1836, 281; bill to control United States mails, 282; tries to stifle petitions, 284; resolutions on Enterprise affair, 286; approves Webster's treatment of Creole case, 287; pronounces anti-slavery petition of New Mexico "insolent, " 298; argument as to Constitution in territories, 298; Webster's compliments to on 7th of March, 326. 

California, desires admission as a state, 299; slavery possible in, 319. 

Carlyle, Thomas, description of Webster, 194. 

Caroline, affair of steamboat, 247. 

Cass, Lewis, attack upon Ashburton treaty, 259; Democratic candidate for presidency and defeated, 274. 

Chamberlain, Mellen, comparison of Webster with other orators, 203, note. 

Chatham, Earl of, compared with Webster as an orator, 201. 

Choate, Rufus, compared with Webster as an orator, 202; resigns senatorship, 262; leads Webster delegates at Baltimore, 338. 

Clay, Henry, makes Mr. Webster chairman of Judiciary Committee, 131; active support of Greek resolutions, 134; author of American system and tariff of 1824, 136, 163; desires Panama mission, 140; Webster's opposition to, 145; candidate for presidency in 1832, 207; bill for reduction of tariff, 1831-32, 211; consults with Calhoun, 215; introduces Compromise bill, 215; carries Compromise bill, 218, 219; alliance with Calhoun, 222; opinion of Webster's course in 1833, 222, 223; alliance with Webster, 226; introduces resolutions of censure on Jackson, 228; attitude in regard to France, 230; declines to enter Harrison's cabinet, 240; attacks President Tyler, 250, 251; movement in favor of, in Massachusetts, 258; nominated for presidency and defeated, 262; movement to nominate in 1848, 273; resolutions as to slavery in the District, 284; plan for compromise in 1850, 300; introduces Compromise bill in Senate, 301; policy of compromise, 309, 310; consistent supporter of compromise policy, 315; not a candidate for presidency in 1852, 337; popularity of, 355. 

Clingman, Thomas L. , advocates slavery in California, 320. 

Congregational Church, power and politics of, in New Hampshire, 76. 

Congress, leaders in thirteenth, 49; leaders in fourteenth, 64. 

Cooper, James Fenimore, Webster's speech, at memorial meeting, 195. 

Corcoran, Wm. W. , gift to Mr. Webster, 357, note. 

Crawford, William H. , attack on by Ninian Edwards, 136, 146, 147; bids for support of Webster and Federalists, 146; defended by Webster, 147; fails to get support of Federalists, 148. 

Creole, case of the, 253, 255, 287. 

Crimes Act, 138. 

Crittenden, John J. , Morehead's letter to, about 7th of March speech, 326. 

Cruising Convention, the, 255, 259. 

Cumberland Road, bill for, 137. 

Curtis, George T. , biography of Webster, 1, note; opinion of reply to Calhoun, 216; of expunging resolution, 234; describes New York movement for Taylor as a blunder, 273; says majority disapproved 7th of March speech, 303; considers Taylor's policy in 1850 impracticable, 311; views as to danger of secession in 1850, 314. 

Cushing, Caleb, Minister to China, 260; course in 1838, 285. 

Dartmouth College case, account of, 74-97. 

Davis, Daniel, 30. 

Denison, John Evelyn, friendship and correspondence with Mr. Webster, 152. 

Dexter, Samuel, a leader at Boston bar, 30; practises in New Hampshire, 36. 

Dickinson, Daniel S. , attack upon Mr. Webster, 268. 

Disraeli, Benjamin, free trade a question of expediency, 169. 

Douglas, Stephen A. , offers amendment to Oregon bill, 294. 

Dunham, Josiah, attacks Webster for deserting Wheelock, 77. 

Durfree, American citizen killed on Caroline, 247. 

Duvall, Judge, opposed to Dartmouth College, 87; writes dissenting opinion, 96. 

Edwards, Ninian, charges against Mr. Crawford, 136, 146, 147; character of, 146, 147. 

Enterprise, case of the, 286. 

Erskine, Lord, compared with Webster as an orator, 202. 

Everett, Edward, Webster desires appointment of as Commissioner to Greece, 135; Minister to England, 252; refuses Chinese mission, 260. 

Farrar, Timothy, report of Dartmouth College case, 81, 86. 

Federalists, ruling party in New Hampshire, 76; defeated on college issue, 78; movement of to get decision for college, 92-94; position of in 1823, 130, 131; hostility to John Quincy Adams, 145, 146; attempted alliance with Crawford, 146-148; to be recognized by Adams, 149; free-traders in New England, 155 ff. 

Fillmore, Millard, offers Mr. Webster secretaryship of state, 333; candidate for Whig nomination, 338; urges Mr. Webster to stay in the cabinet, 344. 

Foote, Henry S. , moves to refer admission of California to a select committee, 301. 

Foote, Samuel A. , resolution regarding public lands, 172. 

Force Bill, introduced, 214; debated, 215, 216. 

Forsyth, John, attacks Mr. Adams's message on Creek Indians, 142; answered by Webster, 142, 143. 

Fox, Charles James, "no good speech reads well, " 189; compared with Webster as an orator, 202; as a statesman, 350. 

Fox, Henry S. , British minister at Harrison's reception of diplomatic corps, 245; demands release of McLeod, 248. 

Free-Soil party, nominations in 1848 do not obtain Webster's support, 274, 296; attitude in regard to slavery in 1860, 316; injured by 7th of March speech, 324; revival and victory, 325. 

Fryeburg, Maine, Webster's school at, 26; oration before citizens of, 27. 

Gibbons vs. Ogden, case of, 99. 

Giddings, Joshua R. , opinion of Mr. Webster's attitude toward the South in 1838, 286; says Mr. Webster inserted passage about free negroes and Mr. Hoar after delivery of 7th of March speech, 303; interview with Mr. Webster, 322. 

Girard will case, 101, 261. 

Goodrich, Dr. Chauncey A. , description of close of Mr. Webster's argument in Dartmouth case, 89, 90. 

Goodridge, Major, case of, 198. 

Gore, Christopher, admits Mr. Webster as a student in his office, 28; character of, 29; advises Webster to refuse clerkship, moves his admission to the bar, 31. 

Greece, revolution in, 132. 

Hamilton, Alexander, compared with Webster as an orator, 201; as a financier, 208, 226, 228; in regard to attack on Adams, 274; Webster's opinion of, and feeling to, 349. 

Hanover, oration before citizens of, 20, 22. 

Harrison, William Henry, nominee of Whigs in 1836, 225; nominated by Whigs again in 1839; elected President, 240; character of inaugural speech, anecdote, 244; reception of diplomatic corps, 245; death of, 250. 

Hartford Convention, Mr. Webster's view of, 58. 

Harvey, Peter, character of his reminiscences, 95, note. 

Hayne, Robert Y. , first attack on New England, 172; second speech, 173; Webster's reply to, 174 ff. , 279; effect of reply to, 206. 

Henry, Patrick, compared with Webster as an orator, 200. 

Hoar, Samuel, treatment of at Charleston, 302. 

Holmes, John, counsel for State at Washington, poor argument, 84, 91. 

Hopkinson, Joseph, with Mr. Webster in Dartmouth case at Washington, good argument of, 84. 

Hülsemann, Mr. , Austrian Chargé, Mr. Webster's correspondence with, 334; leaves the country in anger, 335. 

Ingersoll, C. J. , attack on Mr. Webster, 267-270. 

Jackson, Andrew, Webster's opposition to as candidate for presidency, 145; accession to the presidency, 171; sweeping removals, 172; begins attack on bank, 208; vetoes bill for renewal of bank charter, 209; determined to maintain integrity of Union, 212; issues his proclamation, 213; message asking for Force Bill, cannot hold his party, supported by Webster, 214; threatens to hang Calhoun, 215; not sorry for compromise, 219; alliance with Webster impossible, 221; removes the deposits, 226; sends "Protest" to Senate, 228, 229; struggle with Senate and policy toward France, 230. 

Jefferson, Thomas, intends an unlimited embargo, 45; eulogy on, 125. 

Johnson, Judge, adverse at first to Dartmouth college, 87; converted to support of college, 93. 

Kent, James, Chancellor, brought over to support of college, 93. 

Kentucky, leaders in, opposed to Webster, 224, 225. 

Kossuth, arrival and reception of in United States, 335. 

Labouchere, Mr. , 152. 

Lawrence, Abbot, treatment of by Mr. Webster, 354. 

Leroy, Caroline, Miss, second wife of Mr. Webster, 205. 

Letcher, Robert P. , opinion of Webster, 225. 

Liberty party, 262, 287. 

Lieber, Dr. Francis, opinion of Webster's oratory, 187. 

Lincoln, Levi, elected senator from Massachusetts and declines, 144. 

Livingston, Judge, adverse at first to Dartmouth college, 87; converted to support of college, 93. 

Lobes Islands, affair of the, 336. 

Lopez, invasion of Cuba, 336. 

Madison, James, Federalists refuse to call on, 60; vetoes Bank Bill, 64; Mr. Webster's admiration for, 349. 

Macgregor, Mr. , of Glasgow, Webster's letter to, 266. 

Maine, conduct in regard to northeastern boundary, 248, 254, 256. 

Marshall, John, sympathy for Dartmouth College, 87; his political prejudices aroused by Webster, 88; announces that decision is reserved, 92; declines to hear Pinkney, 95; his decision, 96. 

Marshfield, Mr. Webster's first visit to, 152; his affection for, 261; accident to Mr. Webster at, 343; Mr. Webster returns to, to die, 344; Mr. Webster buried at, 345, 346. 

Mason, Jeremiah, character and ability, 38; effect upon, and friendship for Webster, 39; plain style and effect with juries, 40; thinks Webster would have made a good actor, 42; allied with trustees of college, 76; advises delay in removal of Wheelock, 78; appears for college, 79; brief in college case, 80; attaches but little importance to doctrine of impairing contracts, 81; unable to go to Washington, 84; Webster's remarks on death of, 127; supported by Webster for attorney-generalship, 148; and for senatorship, 150. 

Mason, John Y. , advocates slavery in California, 320; Webster's compliment to on 7th of March, 326. 

Massachusetts, settlement of, 1, 2; constitutional convention of in 1820, 110; Webster's defence of, 185; conduct in regard to northeastern boundary, 248, 254; Whig convention of, declares against Tyler, 258. 

McDuffie, George, Webster's reply to, on Cumberland Road Bill, 137, 173. 

McLane, Louis, instructions of Van Buren to, as minister to England, 210. 

McLeod, Alexander, boasts of killing Durfree, 247; arrested in New York, 247; habeas corpus refused, 249; proves an alibi and is acquitted, 252. 

Melbourne, Lord, ministry of, beaten, 252. 

Mexico, war with, declared, 270, 290. 

Mills, E. H. , failing health, leaves Senate, 144. 

Monroe, James, visit to the North urged by Webster, 129. 

New Hampshire, settlement of, 2; soil, etc. , 3; people of, 4; bar of, 35, 36; Webster refuses to have his name brought forward by, in 1844, 262. 

New Mexico, petitions against slavery, 298; quarrel with Texas, 299; slavery possible in, 319. 

New Orleans, destruction of Spanish consulate at, 336. 

New York, attitude of, in McLeod affair, 248, 249. 

Niagara, Webster's visit to, and account of, 152. 

Niblo's Garden, Mr. Webster's speech at, 238. 

Nicaragua, British protectorate of 336. 

Niles, Nathaniel, Judge, pupil of Bellamy and opponent of John Wheelock, 75. 

Noyes, Parker, early assistance to Webster, 107. 

Nullification, Webster's discussion, and history of, 174 ff. 

Ogden vs. Saunders, case of, 100. 

Oregon, boundary of, Webster's effort to settle, 260-264; Webster's opinion in regard to boundary of, 265; claims of British and of Democracy, 285; territorial organization of, 294. 

Otis, Harrison Gray, a leader at Boston bar, 30. 

Palmerston, Lord, hostile to the United States, 248; assails Ashburton treaty and Lord Ashburton, 259. 

Panama Congress, debate on mission to, 140, 279. 

Parker, Isaac, Chief Justice, in Massachusetts convention, 111. 

Parsons, Theophilus, Chief Justice of Massachusetts, 30; practice in New Hampshire, 36; argument as to visitatorial powers at Harvard College, 81. 

Parton, James, description of Webster at public dinner, 195. 

Peake, Thomas, "Law of Evidence, " Webster's attack on, 37. 

Peel, Sir Robert, effect of his obtaining office in 1841, 252. 

Pickering, Timothy, unwavering Federalist, 50. 

Pinkney, William, member of fourteenth Congress, 64; counsel of State in Dartmouth, case, 94, 95; anecdote of, with Webster, 95, note. 

Plumer, William, leading lawyer in New Hampshire and early opponent of Webster; opinion of Webster, 36; refutes Mr. Webster's attack on "Peake, " 37; in ill health and unable to act for Wheelock, 76; elected Governor and attacks trustees, 78. 

Plymouth, oration at, 117-124, 277. 

Polk, James K. , elected President; committed to annexation policy, 263; principal events of his administration connected with slavery, 264; declarations as to Oregon, 265; accepts Lord Aberdeen's offer of forty-ninth parallel, 266; real intentions as to Mexico and England, 267; refuses information as to secret service fund, 269; brings on Mexican war, 270, 290; policy as to slavery in territories, 207. 

Portugal, treaty with, 260. 

Prescott, James, Judge, Webster's defence of, 197. 

Randolph, John, member of fourteenth Congress, 64; challenges Webster, 67; takes part in debate on Greek resolution, 134. 

Rhode Island, case of, 104, 105; troubles in, 260. 

"Rockingham Memorial, " 48. 

"Rogers' Rangers, " 5. 

Root, Mr. , of Ohio, resolution against extension of slavery in 1850, 314. 

Scott, Winfield, nominated, for presidency, 338-343. 

Seaton, Mrs. , Webster at house of, 244. 

Seward, William H. , advises Taylor as to policy in 1850, 312. 

Sheridan, R. B. , compared with Webster as an orator, 201, 202. 

Shirley, John M. , history of Dartmouth College causes, 74. 

Silliman, Prof. Benj. , Mr. Webster's remark to on his own career, 346. 

Smith, Jeremiah, Chief Justice of New Hampshire, 36; allied with trustees of the college, 76; appears for college, 79, 80; unable to go to Washington, 84. 

Smith, Sidney, remark on Webster's appearance, 194. 

Spanish claims, 152. 

Sparks, Jared, obtains appointment of boundary commissioners by Maine, 254. 

"Specie Circular, " debate on, 233, 284. 

South Carolina, agitation in against the tariff in 1828, 171; ordinance of nullification, 212; substantial victory of, in 1838, 219. 

Stanley, Mr. , Earl of Darby, 152. 

Stevenson, Andrew, minister to England, unconciliatory, 248; retires, and is succeeded by Mr. Everett, 252. 

Story, Joseph, chosen trustee of Dartmouth College by the State, 79; adverse to Dartmouth College, 87; converted to support of college, 93; writes opinion in Dartmouth case, 96; opinion of Girard will case argument, 102; Webster's obligations to, 108; a member of Massachusetts convention, 111; supports property qualification for the Senate, 115; opinion of Webster's work in the convention, 116, 117; Webster's remarks on death of, 127; assists Webster in preparing Crimes Act, 138; and Judiciary Bill, 189; description of Mr. Webster after his wife's death, 155; assists Webster in Ashburton negotiation, 256; treatment of, by Webster, 364. 

Sullivan, George, leading lawyer in New Hampshire, 36; counsel for Woodward and State trustees, able argument, 79. 

Sullivan, James, 30. 

Taney, Roger, removes the deposits, 226. 

Tayloe, B. Ogle, anecdote of Mr. Corcoran's gift to Webster, 357. 

Taylor, Zachary, tempting candidate for Whigs, 272; movement for, in New York, 273; nominated for presidency, 273; elected President, 274; elected by Southern votes, 296; advises admission of California, 301; attitude and policy in 1850, 311, 312; death, 333; agent sent to Hungary by, 333. 

Tazewell, L. W. , Mr. Webster's reply to on Process Bill, 155. 

Tehuantepec, Isthmus of, right of way over, 336. 

Texas, independence of, achieved, 232; annexation of, 263, 289; Mr. Webster's warning against annexation, 288; admission as a State, 280; plan to divide, 294; troubles with New Mexico, 299. 

Thompson, Thomas W. , Webster a student in his office, 27. 

Ticknor, George, account of Plymouth oration, 118, 119; impression of Plymouth oration, 120; description of Webster at Plymouth, 122; account of Webster's appearance in eulogy on Adams and Jefferson, 152, 153. 

Todd, Judge, opposed to Dartmouth College, 87; absent at decision, 96. 

Tyler, John, succeeds to presidency on death of Harrison; vetoes Bank Bill, 250; quarrels with Whigs, 251; read out of party by Massachusetts Whigs, 258. 

Van Buren, Martin, instructions to McLane, 210; confirmation as minister to England, opposed, 210; confirmation of, defeated, 211; elected President, character of his administration, 236; defeated for a second term, 240; candidate of Free-Soil party in 1848, 274, 296. 

Washington, Bushrod, Judge, friendly to college, 87; opinion in favor of college, 96. 

Washington, city of, appearance of, and society in, in 1841, 241-243. 

Washington, George, opinion of Ebenezer Webster, 7; oration upon, 127. 

Webster, Abigail Eastman, second wife of Ebenezer and mother of Daniel, 8; assents to Ezekiel's going to college, 24. 

Webster, Daniel. Birth, delicacy, friendship with old sailor, 9; at the district schools, 10; reads to the teamsters, reads books in circulating library, 11; at Exeter Academy, with Dr. Wood, learns that he is to go to college, 12; enters Dartmouth College, 13; sacrifices made to him in childhood, 14; Ezekiel lends him money, manner of accepting devotion of those about him, 15; studies and scholarship, 16, 17; opinions of fellow students; his general conduct, 18; eloquence and appearance in college, 19; edits newspaper, writes verses, 20; oration at Hanover, 20-22; other orations in college, begins study of law, 23; obtains his father's consent to Ezekiel's going to college, 24; teaches school at Fryeburg, 25; conduct and appearance at Fryeburg, 26; delivers oration at Fryeburg; returns to Salisbury and studies law, 27; goes to Boston and is admitted to Mr. Gore's office, 28; sees leaders of Boston bar, 29; appointed clerk of his father's court, 30; declines the office, 31; opens an office at Boscawen; moves to Portsmouth, 32; early habit of debt, 33; first appearance in court, 34; early manner, 37; described by Mason, opinion of Mason's ability, 38; value of Mason's example, 40; married to Miss Grace Fletcher, at Salisbury, 41; home in Portsmouth, popularity, mimicry, conservatism in religion and politics, 42; moderate and liberal federalist, 43; gradual entrance into politics, "appeal to old Whigs, " speeches at Salisbury and Concord, pamphlet on embargo, 44; line of argument against embargo, "The State of our Literature, " speech at Portsmouth, 1812, 45; character of opposition to war in this speech, 46, 47; writes the "Rockingham Memorial, " 48; elected to Congress, placed on Committee on Foreign Relations, 49; introduces resolutions on French decrees, votes steadily with his party, 50; dropped from Committee on Foreign Relations, tries to obtain debate on his resolutions, 51; strong speech against Enlistment Bill, 52; speech on repeal of embargo, replies to Calhoun, 54; remarks on double duties, 55; character of these speeches, 56; superiority to other speakers in Congress, 57; views as to Hartford Convention, 58; votes against war taxes, 59; partisanship, calls on Mr. Madison, 60; conversational manner in debate, 61; takes a leading part in debate on establishment of bank, 1814-15, 62; power of his argument against irredeemable paper, 63; opinion of fourteenth Congress, 64; speech against Bank Bill in session of 1815-16, 66; votes against Bank Bill, introduces specie resolutions, carries them, 66; challenged by Randolph, 67; votes for internal improvements, retires from public life, 68; removal to Boston, success in Supreme Court of United States, 69; grief at the death of his daughter Grace, 70; position on leaving Congress, 71; reception in Boston, 72; importance of period upon which he then entered, 73; consulted by John Wheelock on troubles with trustees, 76; refuses to appear before legislative committee for Wheelock, and goes over to side of trustees, his excuse, 77; advises efforts to soothe Democrats and circulation of rumors of founding a new college, 78; joins Mason and Smith in re-argument at Exeter, 79; anger at Bartlett's attack, fine argument at Exeter, 80; relies for success on general principles, and has but little faith in doctrine of impairing obligation of contracts, 81, 82; gives but little space to this doctrine in his argument at Washington, 83; raises money in Boston to defray expenses of college case, 84; adds but little to argument of Mason and Smith, 85; "something left out" in report of his argument, 86; dexterous argument, appeal to political sympathies of Marshall, 87; depicts Democratic attack on the college, 88; description of concluding passage of his argument, 89-91; moves for judgment _nunc pro tunc_, 96; true character of success in this case, 97, 98; argument in Gibbons vs. Ogden, 99; in Ogden vs. Saunders and other cases, 100; in Girard will case, 101, 102; nature of his religious feeling, 103; argument in Rhode Island case, 104; attracts audiences even to legal arguments, anecdote of Mr. Bosworth, 105; skill in seizing vital points, 106; capacity for using others, early acknowledgment, later ingratitude, 107; refusal to acknowledge Judge Story's assistance, 108; comparative standing as a lawyer, 109; leader of conservative party in Massachusetts Convention, 111; speech on abolition of religious test, 112; on property qualification, for the Senate, 113, 115; on the independence of the Judiciary, 116; Plymouth oration, 117; manner and appearance, 118; fitness for occasional oratory, 120; great success at Plymouth, 121, 122; improvement in first Bunker Hill oration, quality of style, 124; oration on Adams and Jefferson, 125; supposed speech of John Adams, 126; oration, before Mechanics Institute, other orations, 127; oration on laying corner-stone of addition to capitol, 128; reëlected to Congress, 129; political position in 1823, 130; placed at head of Judiciary Committee, 131; speech on revolution in Greece, 132; its objects and purposes, 133, 134; withdraws his resolutions, success of his speech, 135; speech against tariff of 1824, defends Supreme Court, 136; speech on the Cumberland Road Bill, 137; carries through the Crimes Act, 138; carries Judiciary Bill through House, lost in Senate, 139; supports mission to Panama Congress, 140, 141; supports reference of message on Georgia and Creek Indians, 142; tone of his speech, 143; elected senator from Massachusetts, 144; early inclination to support Calhoun, opposition to Jackson and Adams, 145; to Clay, relations with Crawford, 146; on committee to examine charges of Edwards, defends Crawford, 147; wishes Mr. Mason to be Attorney-General, and English mission for himself, takes but little part in election, 148; interview with Mr. Adams, 148, 149; friendly relations with Mr. Adams, supports administration, 149; real hostility to, feels that he is not properly recognized, and accepts senatorship, 150; inactive in election, allied with Clay and Adams, and founders of Whig party, 161; Spanish claims, first sees Marshfield, English friends, Niagara, oration at Bunker Hill, and eulogy on Adams and Jefferson, 152, 153; grief on death of his wife, 154; appearance in Washington after death of his wife, 155; speech on bill for revolutionary officers, on tariff of 1828, 156, 165; free-trade Federalist when he entered Congress, 157; remarks in 1814 on protective duties, 158, 159; advocates modifications in tariff of 1816, 160; speech at Faneuil Hall against tariff in 1820, 160-163; speech against tariff of 1824, 163-165; reasons for his change of position, as to tariff in 1828, 166, 167; speech at Boston dinner, 167; character of this change of policy, and question of consistency, 168; treats free trade or protection as a question of expediency, 169; change on the constitutional question, 170; opposes Jackson's removals from office, 172; first speech on Foote's resolution, 173; second speech, reply to Hayne, 174; argument on nullification, 175; weak places in his argument, 176; intention in this speech, definition of the Union as it is, 179, 180; scene of the speech and feeling at the North, 181; opening sentence of the speech, 182; manner and appearance on that day, 183; variety in the speech, 184; sarcasm, defence of Massachusetts, 185; character of his oratory, 186, 187; of his imagination, 188; of his style, 189; preparation of speeches, 190; physical appearance and attributes, 191, 192; manner with and effect on children, 193; effect of his appearance in England, 194; anecdotes of effect produced by his look and appearance, 195; constitutional indolence, needs something to excite him in later life, anecdote, 196; defence of Prescott, 197; Goodridge case, White case, greatness of argument in latter, 198; opening passage compared with Burke's description of Hyder Ali's invasion, 199; as a jury lawyer, 200; compared in eloquence with other great orators, 201, 202; perfect taste of as an orator, 203; rank as an orator, 204; change made by death of Ezekiel and by second marriage, 205; general effect on the country of reply to Hayne, 206; ambition for presidency begins, desires consolidation of party, no chance for nomination, 207; advocates renewal of bank charter, 208; overthrows doctrines of bank veto, 209; opposes confirmation of Van Buren as minister to England, 210; defeats confirmation, 211; predicts trouble from tariff, 212; sees proclamation, wholly opposed to Clay's first Compromise Bill, 213; sustains the administration and supports the Force Bill, 214; reply to Calhoun, "the Constitution not a compact, " 216, 217; opposes the Compromise Bill, 218; Benton's view of, 219, 220; impossible to ally himself with Jackson, 221; joins Clay and Calhoun, 222; soundness of his opposition to compromise, 223; falls in behind Clay, tour in the West, nominated by Massachusetts for presidency, 224; no chance of success, effect of desire for presidency, 225; alliance with Clay and Calhoun, opinion as to the bank, 226; presents Boston resolutions against President's course, 227; speaks sixty-four times on bank during session, 228; speech on the "protest, " 229; attitude in regard to troubles with France, 230; defeats Fortification Bill, speech on executive patronage, 231; defeat of Benton's first expunging resolution, 232; defence of his course on Fortification Bill, 233; speech on "Specie Circular" and against expunging resolution, 234; desires to retire from the Senate but is persuaded to remain, 235; efforts to mitigate panic, 236; visits England, hears of Harrison's nomination for presidency, 237; enters campaign, speech of 1837 at Niblo's Garden, 238; speeches during campaign, 239; accepts secretaryship of state, 240; modifies Harrison's inaugural, "kills proconsuls, " 244; De Bacourt's account of, at reception of diplomatic corps, 245, 246; opinion as to general conduct of difficulties with England, 248; conduct of McLeod affair, 249; deprecates quarrel with Tyler, 250; decides to remain in the cabinet, 252; conduct of the Creole case, 253; management of Maine and Massachusetts, settles boundary, 254; obtains "Cruising Convention, " and extradition clause, letter on impressment, 255; character of negotiation and its success, 256; treaty signed, "the battle of the maps, " continues in cabinet, 257; refuses to be forced from cabinet, 258; speech in Faneuil Hall defending his course, 258; character of this speech, explains "Cruising Convention, " 259; refutes Cass, other labors in State Department, 260; resigns secretaryship of state and resumes his profession, 261; anxiety about Texas and Liberty party, supports Clay, 262; reëlected to the Senate, 263; efforts to maintain peace with England, speech in Faneuil Hall, 265; letter to Macgregor suggesting forty-ninth parallel, opposition to war in the Senate, 266; attacked by Ingersoll and Dickinson, 267; speech in defence of Ashburton treaty, 268; remarks on President Polk's refusal of information as to secret service fund, careless in his accounts, 269; absent when Mexican war declared, course on war measures, tour in the South, 270; denounces acquisition of territory, death of his son and daughter, visit to Boston for funerals, 271; refuses nomination for vice-presidency and opposes the nomination of Taylor, 272; has only a few votes in convention of 1848, 273; disgusted with the nomination of Taylor, decides to support it, speech at Marshfield, 274; course on slavery, draws Boston memorial, 275; character of this memorial, 276; attack on slave-trade in Plymouth oration, 277; compared with tone on same subject in 1850, 278; silence as to slavery in Panama speech, 279; treatment of slavery in reply to Hayne, 279, 280; treatment of anti-slavery petitions in 1836, 281; treatment of slavery in speech at Niblo's Garden, 282, 283; treatment of anti-slavery petitions in 1837, 284; views as to abolition in the District, 285; attitude toward the South in 1838, 280; adopts principle of Calhoun's Enterprise resolutions in Creole case, 287; attempts to arouse the North as to annexation of Texas, 288; objections to admission of Texas, 280; absent when Mexican war declared, 290; views on Wilmot Proviso, 291; speech at Springfield, 292; speech on objects of Mexican war, 293; Oregon, speech on slavery in the territories, 294; speech on Oregon Bill, and at Marshfield on Taylor's nomination, 295; adheres to Whigs, declares his belief in Free Soil principles, 296; effort to put slavery aside, 297; plan for dealing with slavery in Mexican conquests, refutes Calhoun's argument as to Constitution in territories, 298; Clay's plan of compromise submitted to, 300; delivers 7th of March speech, 301; analysis of 7th of March speech, 301, 302; speech disapproved at the North, 303; previous course as to slavery summed up, change after reply to Hayne, 304; grievances of South, 305; treatment of Fugitive Slave Law, 305-308; course in regard to general policy of compromise; merits of that policy, 308-312; views as to danger of secession, 313, 314; necessity of compromise in 1850, 315; attitude of various parties in regard to slavery, 316; wishes to finally settle slavery question, 317; treatment of extension of slavery, 318; disregards use of slaves in mines, 319; inconsistent on this point, 321; interviews with Giddings and Free-Soilers, 322; real object of speech, 323; immediate effect of speech in producing conservative reaction, 324; compliments Southern leaders in 7th of March speech, 325, 326; effort to sustain the compromise measures, bitter tone, 327; attacks anti-slavery movement, 328, 329; uneasiness evident, 330; motives of speech, 330-332; accepts secretaryship of state, 333; writes the Hülsemann letter, 334; treatment of Kossuth and Hungarian question, 335; of other affairs of the department, 336: hopes for nomination for presidency, 337; belief that he will be nominated, 338; loss of the nomination, 339; refuses to support Scott, 340; character of such a course, 341-343; declining health, accident at Marshfield, 344; death and burial, 345; disappointments in his later years, 346; his great success in life, 347; his presence, 348; character of his intellect, 348, 349; dignity, 349; character as a statesman, 350; sense of humor, 351; charm in conversation, 352; large nature, love of large things, 353; affection, generosity, treatment of friends, 355; admired but not generally popular, 356; distrust of his sincerity, 355, 356; failings, indifference to debt, 356; extravagance, 357; attacked on money matters, 358; attitude toward New England capitalists and in regard to sources of money, 359; moral force not equal to intellectual, 360; devotion to Union, place in history, 361-362. 

Webster, Ebenezer, born in Kingston, enlists in "Rangers, " 5; settles at Salisbury, 6; marries again, serves in Revolution, 7; physical and mental qualities, 8; made a judge, 11; resolves to educate Daniel, 12; consents to let Ezekiel go to college, 24; disappointment at Daniel's refusal of clerkship, 31; death, 32; strong federalist, anecdote, 48. 

Webster, Edward, Major, death of, 270. 

Webster, Ezekiel, anecdote of his lending Daniel money, 15; obtains consent of his father to go to college, 24; teaches school in Boston, 28; admitted to bar, 32; strong Federalist, 43; death of, 205. 

Webster, Grace, daughter of Daniel Webster, illness, 65; death, 70. 

Webster, Grace Fletcher, first wife of Mr. Webster; marriage and character, 41, 42; death, 164. 

Webster, Thomas, first of name, 5. 

Wheelock, Eleazer, founder of Dartmouth College, 75. 

Wheelock, John, succeeds his father as President of Dartmouth College, 75; begins war on trustees; consults Mr. Webster, 76; writes to Webster to appear before legislative committee, 77; removed from presidency and goes over to the Democrats, 78; originator of the doctrine of impairing obligation of contracts, 81; fees Mr. Webster, 359. 

Whig Party, origin of, 151; condition in 1836, 235; nominate Harrison, 237, 238; carries the country in 1840, 240; anger against Tyler, 250; murmurs against Mr. Webster's remaining in Tyler's cabinet, 267; attacks of, in Massachusetts, upon Tyler, 258; silence about slavery and Texas, are defeated in 1844, 262, 289; nominate Taylor, 273; indifference to Mr. Webster's warning as to Texas, 288; attitude in regard to slavery in 1850, 316; nomination of Scott by, in 1852, 338-343. 

White, Stephen, case of murder of, Webster's speech for prosecution, 198 ff. ; Webster's fee in, 359. 

Wilmot Proviso, Mr. Webster's views on, 291-293; embodied in Oregon Bill, 295; shall it be applied to New Mexico, 299; attacked in 7th of March speech, 301, 302. 

Wirt, William, counsel for State in Dartmouth case at Washington, unprepared, makes poor argument, 84, 91; anecdote of daughter of and Mr. Webster, 193. 

Wood, Dr. , of Boscawen, Webster's tutor, 12, 13. 

Woodward, William H. , secretary of new board of trustees; action against, 79. 

Wortley, Mr. Stuart, 152. 

Yancey, William L. , attack on Webster, 358.