title: Webster's work for the Union; a paper read before the Fortnightly club, Newark, New Jersey,
text: O ^ , . s ' \ H O ^ ^ ,^-^^ .^^ "Ik. .<■' .<f-^-r% /.>^-.\ cO^.:^v/°o /..: Y. \/ ;'^«^'- %,** .-^va- x/ .*;^^ ' %/, •- %o^^ :;«•■ ^•'■./ -^^- §^; .^^ 4'^ . . ■ '^. v*<V r<- <^<. '°'*^^" ■^^0^ .-^o^ ■^■' ^ ''-'^ ,V .^^ "^, o " " * O v% ^ iV X^ % ,<^ *^tf 4 o -3 vp^ .0 . - ^ s • • , -^p. -J.^ .-^J. ^^ %.^^ .« V^. o '^^ -^^ . . . / V^" '^ --^ n^ .0 V- .^^^-"^^ ^^am^^' \' ,* -V^ ^^ -.'v '^^- jt. ■r .0^ .;> - -5*.. T o ■^- s'' S'r ,^'% .*^\ .n q «<» 4 »« »J^ c ilKv^^^^o ^v ^v;,yv_,:;^^ v^^ ,'0' " " « (D WEBSTER'S WORK FOR THE UNION BERGEN WEBSTER'S WORK FOR THE UNION Neque enim iilla res est, in qua propius ad deorum numeu virtus aeeedat hnmaua, quam eivitates aut condere novas aut conservare jam conditas. Cicei'O, de Republiea. ~^''^:s^f:_3?r^ z^.^.^:; WEBSTER'S WORK FOR THE UNION A PAPER READ BEFORE THE FORTNIGHTLY CLUB, NEWARK, NEW JERSEY BY FRANK BERGEN, LL.D. NEW HAVEN PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS MDCCCCXVIII rs COPYRIGHT 1918 BY YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS This edition first puhlished, June, 191S OCT -3 1918 ^\'^ , I .K: NOTE THE following paper was prepared for the purpose of bring- ing out a little more distinctly than elsewhere (1) the plight from which Daniel Webster rescued the constitution; (2) ^^ the fact that in March, 1850, he was not behind the spirit of the '^K times in dealing as a statesman with the menacing problem of slavery; and (3) that his personal opinions on the subject of slavery were quite in harmony with the sane sentiment of his countrymen in the decade before the civil war. For the use of the portrait of Webster I am indebted to Houghton, Mifflin Co., by whom it was published in Lodge's Life of Webster; and to J. B. Lippincott Co. for the facsimile of a letter by Lincoln to Chase, published by them in Lee's True History of the Civil War. F. B. Elizabeth, N. J., June, 1918. 5 WEBSTER'S WORK FOR THE UNION MR. GLADSTONE once said: "The American constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man." Gladstone often failed in his efforts to tell the truth, and he seldom failed more completely than when he made that statement. If he had known as much about the American constitution as he may have known about Greek, and had ever learned to make a re- mark in English with less than two meanings, he might have said that the building of the republic of the United States under the supposed or alleged authority of the constitution is one of the most w^onderful works ever accomplished by the brain and purpose of man within a period of eighty years. I have never been able to find out definitely whether the draft of the constitution as it came from the conven- tion held at Philadelphia in 1787 expressed the agreement of the delegates or delegations from the states as clearly as they might have expressed it if thej^ had dared to be candid, or was an effort to do a good thing by stealth. There is evidence to support both views ; indeed, there is so much evidence to support either view as to make con- troversy interminable and the ascertainment of the truth impossible. Important provisions of the constitution which were rejected, when proposed in plain language in the convention, afterwards appeared in the final draft in 8 WEBSTER'S WORK covert forms of expression. The important contract clause was rejected when offered by Rufus King, and afterwards inserted by the committee on style, and so approved with the rest by the final vote. Besides, after the constitution was adopted, other provisions tliat prob- ably would not have been admitted if expressed in lucid paragraphs, were discovered lurking among the loose joints of other powers, which, when examined separately, did not offend the delegates of a majority of the states. The most notable instance of this kind consisted of the proposals to confer on the federal government power to annul legislation or proceedings of the states inconsistent with the constitution. The first plan of a constitution submitted (Randolph's) contained a provision to author- ize congress to negative all acts contrary, in its opinion, to the constitution or to any treaty, and to use force to compel obedience by the states. The second (Charles Pinckney's) proposed to give congress power to revise state laws supposed to conflict with the constitution, and to negative and annul them if found inconsistent. The third (Paterson's) provided that if any state or body of men should oppose or prevent the enforcement of any act of congress or a treaty, the federal executive should have power to compel obedience by force. The next (Hamilton's) declared that all law^s of the states incon- sistent with the constitution and acts of congress should be null and void. This was followed by a motion of Charles Pinckney to vest in congress the power to nega- tive all laws passed by the several states interfering, in the opinion of congress, with the general interest and harmony of th(^ union. Not one of these proposals was adopted, although some of them were pressed vigorously; Init their object was substantially accomplished by other FOR THE UNION 9 provisions found in the constitution, when construed together. The second section of the sixth article declares that the constitution and all laws and treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, notwithstanding anything in the constitution or laws of any state. And in the second section of the third article it is provided that the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitu- tion, the laws of the United States, and treaties, and to some other matters. Consequently, when it was held that the courts had authority to declare acts of congress incon- sistent with the constitution to be void, and acts of the legislatures of the states inconsistent with the constitu- tion, or with acts of congress or treaties, also to be void, it was found that the stone which the builders at first rejected had become the head of the corner of the national government, and many good people marveled when they learned the fact. Moreover, the constitution contained three compro- mises relating to a dangerous matter, and as they were compromises with evil they were not likely to endure. In this way the constitution came to be charged with such stuff as storms are made of, — whether wittingly or not I cannot say. In considering this subject it should be remembered that many of the delegates who attended the convention were practical politicians — among the most useful members of the human family — equipped by long experience in the minor arts of statecraft, and who grew to the stature of statesmen after they died. One extrava- gant statement does not justify another, but in place of the remark of Gladstone it would be more accurate to 10 WEBSTER'S WORK say that for three-fourths of a century the original con- stitution was the fruitful mother of discord, which could not be suppressed permanently by the compromises of Clay, the oratory of Webster, nor by the soothing syrup compounded by Everett and labeled AYashington. I do not think it is possible to obtain a correct view of Webster's work for the union without recalling the status of the constitution in the public mind prior to 1830 when the debate with Hayne occurred. Did the constitution create a national government, a federal government, or a more perfect union of the states than that which had been formed by the articles of confederation and per- petual union! Our present view of the constitution, as it towers over a large part of the world, makes it some- what hard to realize how it was regarded in 1789. It is now regarded as a constitution operating directly on in- dividuals, and also on states. The government created by it is national, and has the exclusive right to define the extent and limit of its powers. The constitution was not so understood when it was adopted, and for many years afterwards, although for a time Hamilton was permitted, if not invited, by Washington and the first and second congress, to construe it as he pleased, in the hope of getting the new^ government under way. If the original constitution is considered as a revision of the articles of confederation, as in large part it was, and is examined from the standpoint of the historian, abundant information may be found to sustain a cogent argument that it was a compact between sovereign states creating a federal government or continuing a con- federacy, from which any state might withdraw^ at will. Tlie constitution was framed by delegates sent to the con- vention by the states; they voted in the convention ))y FOR THE UNION 11 states; their object, as declared in the constitution, was "to create a more perfect union," tliat is, a more perfect union of the states. The draft of the constitution was submitted to the states for adoption; it was adopted by conventions elected by the people of the several states — not by the people of the United States en masse; it bound no state that did not adopt it ; and it provided that when ratified by nine states it should be established as between them. The constitution also provided that the states should be represented in congress and equally in the senate; that they might appoint presidential electors in any way they pleased; that in case of a tie in the elec- toral college a president should be elected by the house of representatives voting by states, and that it might be amended by the states. The principal arguments pre- sented to the people in favor of the adoption of the con- stitution constitute the Federalist, not the Nationalist, and the party subsequently organized to sustain the ad- ministration of Washington and of the elder Adams was called the Federal party. Senator Lodge, in his life of Webster, forgetting for a moment the letter written by Madison to Hamilton Mobile the New York convention was debating the con- stitution, says: "When the constitution was adopted it is safe to say there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton, on the one side, to George Clinton and Mason, on the other, who regarded the new system as anything but an experiment by the states, from which any state had a right practically to withdraw, a right which was very likely to be exercised. ' ' That state- ment, like many others in histories of the United States and in biographies of Americans, is too broad and em- phatic. No doubt many of the people so understood the 12 WEBSTER'S WORK constitution. Hamilton was dissatisfied with it, and probably believed that a government established under it could not endure; but as the constitution prepared by the convention offered the only chance to change the league of states into a nation, he rallied his friends around him and strove mightily to secure its adoption. His splendid intelligence may have discerned possibilities in the proposed constitution which others did not or could not see. Ten years after the constitution was adopted the Kentucky resolutions were written by Jefferson, and the Virginia resolutions by Madison, declaring in substance that the constitution was a compact, the government a confederacy, and that the states might judge of any alleged infraction of the compact, and prohibit the en- forcement of any act of congress within their borders which they had decided to be a palpable and dangerous violation of the compact. These resolutions were sent to the legislatures of all the states, and within two years thereafter Jefferson was elected to the presidency by the house of representatives voting by states, and was suc- ceeded by Madison eight years later. The doctrines of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions sank so deeply into the public mind that they received a partial endorse- ment at the Hartford convention in 1814. The collapse of the Federal party, the election of Jefferson and Madison, and the apparent approval by the people of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions as a correct interpretation of the constitution, discredited the opinions of Hamilton and repudiated his somewhat artificial theory that the constitution had created a con- solidated national government, at least for some impor- tant purposes, and this was done so emphatically that it FOR THE UNION 13 was said to be a brave act for Webster, as late as 1831, to pronounce his famous eulogy on Hamilton at a banquet in New York. The view of the relation of the states and of the people to the union expressed by Jefferson and Madison in 1798, and expounded by Hayne and Calhoun in the early thirties, was substantially this : The source of sovereignty is the people ; the people erected the governments of the several states and delegated part of their sovereignty to them ; the people of the several states, acting separately, also erected the federal government of the United States and delegated part of their sovereignty to that govern- ment ; all sovereignty not so delegated was retained by the people. The constitution conferred on the federal courts jurisdiction in all cases at law and in equity, that is, in all cases between suitors, and did not authorize the federal courts to decide questions that might arise between the states and the federal government. As no tribunal was created to decide such questions, it follows that each must decide for itself, just as independent governments may construe treaties which they have made. Jefferson and his disciples argued that if the federal government were permitted to determine for itself the extent of its powers, the result would be to appropriate gradually the reserved sovereignty of the people, and also that committed to the governments of the states, and so erect a despotism on the ruins of the confederacy. Webster argued, and suc- ceeded in convincing a majority of the people, that all questions as to the meaning of the constitution arising in suits at law or in equity must be decided by the courts ; that the supreme court of the United States is the final tribunal to determine such questions; that its decisions declare the supreme law of the land; and that all other 14 WEBSTER'S WORK questions as to the meaning of the constitution may be decided by congress. It must be conceded that since Webster's view came to prevail the outlines of the states have been slowly fading from the map of the country, and the government at Washington is gradually fulfilling the prophecies of Jefferson and Calhoun. Whether the process of consolidation has proceeded or is likely to pro- ceed too far is a question not now to be considered. About a month before John Adams left the White House he appointed John Marshall chief justice, who held the office from 1801 until 1835, and during that period wrote forty-four opinions on constitutional questions. Marshall's views of the constitution concurred in the main with those that Hamilton had undertaken to ad- minister. Perhaps Marshall's most important opinions were rendered in Marhury v. Madison, holding that the supreme court, and of course any other court, has power to declare an act of congress to be invalid; Cohens v. Virginia, and the Dartmouth College Case, holding that statutes of a state were also subject to condemnation by the federal courts ; McCulloch v. Maryland, in which the implied powers of the constitution were developed at the expense of the states, and in Gibbons v. Ogden, asserting the omnipotent power of congress over interstate com- merce. Webster participated in the argument of these cases, except the first, and Marshall's opinions concur with the arguments that Webster presented. By the arguments and opinions in these and many other cases in which Webster appeared, the dormant or hidden things in the constitution were brought forth slowly and estab- lished as part of the constitutional jurisprudence of the country, much to the annoyance of Jefferson and the pupils of his school. The opinions of Marshall no doubt FOR THE UNION 15 did something to create the sentiment which made Web- ster's reply to Hayne grateful to the public mind, al- though the masses of the people seldom take much inter- est in lawsuits. The controversy between Webster and Hayne in Janu- ary, 1830, arose nominally over a harmless resolution in- troduced by Senator Foote relating to the public lands. Hayne evidently was looking for an opportunity to assail New England, and Webster as its foremost statesman. He charged that New England had been unfriendly to the west in dealing with the public lands and entertained views of the constitution that were unsound, and pur- poses, indicated by the protective tariff law of 1828, that were hostile to the true interests of the rest of the country. His effort evidently was to persuade the west that the east was its enemy, and the south its friend. Both Webster and Hayne made two elaborate speeches, and a few minor remarks on Foote 's resolution, Hayne 's first speech was aggravating, but not personally offen- sive, and Webster made a dignified and convincing reply. Thereupon Hayne lost his temper. His second speech was elaborate, and in it he expounded, for the first time, Calhoun's curious doctrine of constitutional nullification, based on the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. Besides, his speech was highly exasperating, and contained many sharp and angry thrusts at Webster, who on the two fol- lowing days (January twenty-six and twenty-seven) de- livered his immortal reply. It is difficult to describe the reply of Webster in lan- guage that seems to be temperate and judicial. It made a profound impression on those who heard it, and con- vinced millions who read it in print. Its admirable rhetoric appealed alike to scholars who had spent their lives groping among the remains of dead languages ; to 10 WEBSTER'S WORK people of limited education, and to school boys who had just learned to read; and it appealed so forcibly to a latent sentiment for nationality that it really established the constitution in the public mind, and placed the union for the first time on a permanent foundation. Its bene- ficial effects perhaps never were equaled by a single speecli, before or since. Parts that now seem to be defects had the effect of merits in 1830, and for many years after. Webster's pugnacious attitude towards Hayne charmed multitudes who were fond of a personal combat, and induced them to read the speech repeatedly from ])eginning to end, and as they read they learned to realize the value and grandeur of the union. It taught Americans ''to think continentally." The apostrophe to Massachusetts was a terrific effort to overcome Hayne 's biting, and not entirely unjust criticism, by the force of concussion alone. The extravagant peroration, which Webster himself in after years had the good sense to criticise, was declaimed in school houses all over the north, and planted national patriotism deep into the mind of the generation that was called on to preserve tlie union in the civil war. Governor Long of Massachusetts said in January, 1882 — a hundred years after Webster was l)orn: ''The great rebellion of 1861 went down hardly more before the cannon of Grant and Farragut than the thunder of Webster's reply to Hayne." And the late Senator Hoar said in a speech at Plymouth in August, 1889: "Webster's great argument was behind every Ijayonet, and was carried home with every cannon-sliot in the war which saved the union." The perfect taste of Daniel Webster excluded from his speeches such clumsy efforts as these to generate poetry. In the autumn of 1832 Hayne was elected .e^overnor of South Carolina, and retired from the senate. Calhoun near the same time resigned the vice-presidency and was elected to the senate. On Noveml)er 24th Soutli Carolina adopted the memorable ordinance to nullify the tariff act of 1828. The ordinance denounced the act as a violation of the constitution highly injurious to the interests of South Carolina, and forbade every citizen of the state to obey or enforce it. Ironclad oaths to observe the ordi- nance were required of public officials, and severe penal- ties were prescribed for its violation. Thereupon Jack- son issued a proclamation (written, or at least revised, it is said, by Edward Livingston) in which he forcibly denied the right of a state to nullify or prohibit the en- forcement of an act of congress, or to secede from the union. The proclamation was based largely on the view of the constitution and the union that Webster had pre- sented in his reply to Hayne. In January, 1833, a bill was introduced in congress, commonly called the force bill, to enable the president to enforce more readily the tariff laws in South Carolina. The following day Calhoun introduced a series of resolu- tions in the senate, setting forth his views of the right of a state to nullify an act of congress which in its opinion was a palpable and dangerous violation of the constitu- tion, and also to withdraw from the union. Shortly after, Calhoun made a speech in the senate against the force bill, and in support of his resolutions; and on the six- 18 WEBSTER'S WORK teentli of February, 1833, Webster replied in a speech en- titled, "The Union Not a Compact Between Sovereign States. " In that speech the fallacy of the theory of nulli- fication and secession was reviewed and controverted still more skilfully than in the reply to Hayne ; but the speech failed to attract the attention excited by the earlier effort, because it did not contain the elements that appealed so powerfully to the public mind three years before. Webster's argument based on the text of the constitu- tion was invincible. It was a wonderful display of his power to reason lucidly; but in so far as the discussion proceeded on historical grounds it must be said that Cal- houn had the better of the argument. His rejoinder to AYebster contained many sharp points, and in his dis- course on the constitution, written near the close of his life, Calhoun presented an amazing variety of arguments with consummate skill to show that the constitution was a compact between sovereign states; that every state might judge for itself of an infraction of the constitution, and withdraw from the union when it pleased, having of course what Jefferson called a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. It is impossible to read it without admiration even now — half a century after the unholy cause for which Calhoun wrecked his life and nearly wrecked the country was lost forever. In estimating the value of Webster's work for the union in tli(» thirties it should be remembered that he not only expounded the constitution, but to some extent created a constitution for the country.* At the beginning of the century the Hamilton regime, as already observed, * In a de])ato witli Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois, in 1858. Lincoln expressed one of the inaxiins of our politics as follows: "In this, and like comniunities, public sentiment is everything. With FOR THE UNION 19 had been overthrown, indeed ahnost annihilated, and, especially during the war of 1812, the constitution had come to be regarded, in New England particularly, as little better than a rope of sand. The imbecility of the administration of Madison started a change of sentiment in the public mind, and a hope began to arise that the con- stitution might be found after all to contain some virtue or value, ^^^ebster, in his reply to Hayne, gave mag- nificent expression to that hope, and furnished convincing arg-uments for those who were beginning to perceive that a genuine government should be re-established at Wash- ington; and in his reply to Calhoun, Webster gave full expression to the technical meaning of the language of the constitution that he had revived and strengthened by his earlier efforts. Besides the famous speeches on the constitution and the union Webster delivered many others in the same strain, and also prepared and delivered occasional ad- dresses reviewing the most important incidents in the history of the country from the landing of the Pilgrims to the building of the Capitol. These speeches differ in quality and in stjde. Sometimes our Homer nodded and his ponderous intellect, like the intellect of Goethe, needed excitement. The conviction that the union was the shrine of liberty came to dominate Webster's large brain completely, and he lived in the profound belief that public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can suc- ceed. Consequently he Avho moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed." This observation might include constitutions quite as well. Web- ster made the constitution of the United States "possible to be executed. ' ' 20 WEBSTER'S WORK ''witlioiit its shelter no hnman worsliipper could detain the goddess from the skies. ' ' At Niblo's Garden, in March, 1837, speaking in a lofty strain he had learned from Milton, Webster expressed the awfnl fear and hope for the union in which he lived and died : ''Under the present constitution, wisely and conscien- tiously administered, all are safe, happy, and renowned. The measure of our country's fame may fill all our breasts. It is fame enough for us to partake in her glory, if we will carry her character onward to its true destiny. But if the system be broken, its fragments must fall alike on all. Not only the cause of American liberty, ])ut the grand cause of liberty throughout the whole earth, depends, in a great measure, on upholding the constitu- tion and union of these states. If shattered and de- stroyed, no matter by what cause, the peculiar and cher- ished idea of united American liberty will be no more for ever. There may be free states, it is possible, when there shall be separate states. There may be many loose, and feeble, and hostile confederacies, where there is now one great and united confederacy. But the noble idea of united American liberty, of our liberty, such as our fathers established it, will be extinguished for ever. Fragments and shattered columns of the edifice may be found remaining; and melancholy and mournful ruins will they be. The august temple itself will be prostrate in the dust. Gentlemen, the citizens of this republic cannot sever their fortunes. A common fate awaits us. In the honor of upholding, or in the disgrace of under- mining the constitution, we shall all necessarily partake. Let us then stand by the constitution as it is, and by our country as it is, one, united, and entire; let it be a truth FOR THE UNION 21 engraven on our hearts, let it be borne on the flag under which we rally, in every exigency, that we have one country, one constitution, one destiny." Webster's profound sincerity was one of the secrets of his power and of his success in convincing millions of his countrymen that the union must be preserved at all hazards and at every cost. I must now pass on to a momentous incident in the life of Webster growing out of the war with Mexico. In order to be prepared to negotiate a treaty with Mexico, President Polk in 1846 asked congress for an appropria- tion of $2,030,000 to be used in part to pay the expenses of the negotiation, and the balance to ])e used in his discretion — perhaps for some ungodly purpose. A bill to appropriate the money was about to pass the house, when David Wilmot of Pennsylvania offered an amendment in the form of a proviso that no part of the money appropriated by the bill should be used to acquire territory, and no territory should be acquired from Mexico except on the fundamental condition that slavery should never exist therein. The proviso was adopted by the house. Webster voted for it in the senate, but the bill failed to pass. The following year a bill appropriating $3,000,000 for the same purpose was passed, without the proviso. The Wilmot proviso, although it failed of adop- tion, stirred again the controversy over slavery, until it raged with more violence than ever before. Webster dreaded the outlook, and in discussing the- proviso de- clared that he saw nothing in the future but contention and strife. The territory, however, that Polk desired, w^as obtained, but it was subject to the Mexican law pro- hibiting slavery. In the autumn of 1849 the people of California (part 22 WEBSTER'S WORK of the territory taken from Mexico by the slave power) called a convention to frame a constitution. The conven- tion consisted of forty-eight members, fifteen of whom were from the slave states. The draft of the constitution prepared by the convention contained a provision pro- hibiting slavery. It was adopted unanimously by the convention, and promptly ratified by the people. The popular vote in its favor was about fifteen to one. Two senators were elected by the legislature to serve in con- gress, and application was made for admission to the union early in the following year. This proceeding in- furiated the statesmen and spokesmen of the slave states, and Clay devised the last of his compromises to still the tempest. Four years after the compromise of 1850 was effected Lincoln described it as follows: "The union now, as in 1820, was thought to be in danger; and devotion to the union rightfully inclined men to yield somew^hat in points where nothing else could have so inclined them. A com- promise was finally effected. The south got their new fugitive slave law; and the north got California (by far the best part of our acquisition from Mexico) as a free state. The south got a provision that New Mexico and Utah, when admitted as states, may come in with or without slavery as they may then choose; and the north got the slave trade abolished in the District of Columbia. The north got the western boundary of Texas thrown farther back eastward than the south desired; but, in turn, they gave Texas ten millions of dollars, with which to pay her old debts. This is the compromise of 1850." In support of those measures Webster made his memo- rable speech on the seventh of March. New Mexico at that time was supposed to consist largelv of mountains FOR THE UNION 23 and desert, in which slavery could not flourish, and if in- troduced there would die out, as it had died out in the northern states, and for the same reasons. Therefore Webster was not willing to apply the doctrine of tlie Wilmot proviso to that territory. To do so, he argued, w^ould irritate the south, and do nothing to aid the anti- slavery cause. "I look upon it," he said, "as a fixed fact, to use the current expression of the day, that both California and New Mexico are destined to be free. ' ' To put a provision in a bill to provide territorial govern- ment for New Mexico which should exclude slavery, he said, "would be idle as it respects any effect it would have upon the territory, and I would not take pains uselessly to re-afhrm an ordinance of nature, nor to re- enact the will of God. ' ' It has been said that Webster was in error when he de- clared that nature had barred slavery from New Mexico, because the territory contained minerals and slaves worked in mines in ancient times, and in modern times serfs and criminals worked in the mines of Siberia. This criticism overlooks important facts: — Slavery in Web- ster's time had died out in the northern states where minerals abounded. In 1850 there was a strong anti- slavery sentiment in all civilized countries, including the border states. California, as we have seen, had applied for admission to the union with an anti-slavery constitu- tion, and there was good reason to suppose that New Mexico would do the same.* But if Webster had not been confident ' ' that California and New Mexico were destined * In 1850, and after Webster's seventh of March speech, a con- vention met at Santa Fe, New Mexico, and drafted a state consti- tution prohibiting slavery. If I believed in such a necessity, I should, of course, sup- port such a law. I could not do otherwise consistently with opinions very many times expressed, and which I have no inclination to change, and shall not change." It was the opinion of some of Webster's intimate friends, and millions of his countrymen, that his seventh of March speech was a dreadful mistake. Before con- curring in that opinion I should like to hear at least a plausible answer to the question: What other course should Webster have taken in dealing with Clay's com- promise measures in 1850! Webster's opposition might easily have defeated the compromise, but: What then? He had opposed Clay's compromise of 1833, and insisted that the strength and dignity of the government should be vindicated ; but Jackson, after blustering and threaten- people, and state officials were chosen. The military governor of the territory refused, however, to abdicate in favor of the state government without authority of congress. In December of that year congress passed an act creating a territorial form of govern- ment for New Mexico as part of the compromise measures, and after a struggle the embryo state government disappeared. The incident illustrates the correctness of Webster's judgment as to the course likely to be taken by the people of New ]\Iexico when the territory should be permitted to enter the union as a state. FOR THE UNION 25 ing for three years, allowed Clay to surrender to Calhoun nearly all South Carolina demanded. In 1850 not South Carolina alone, but several other southern states, threat- ened to secede unless their wishes, or rights as defined by themselves, were respected and secured by law. The teachings of Calhoun had been as potent in the south as Webster's in the north, and Webster in those gloomy days no doubt foresaw the conflict impending which actually occurred ten years later.* To avert it if pos- sible, or, if inevitable, to postpone it as long as possible, he believed to be the supreme duty of the hour. Probably he knew that a generation was rising with a disposition to fight for the union,' but he could not have known that the young Americans of 1850 were more courageous than Jackson w^as in 1833. The latent sentiment in the north that Webster had created by his speeches in reply to Hayne and Calhoun perhaps was stronger than he knew or could have known, and much of the thoughtless rage that his seventh of March speech aroused came from the deep feeling among the people that their teacher, by whose arguments they had been convinced that a nation had been born, should have taken a defiant attitude in defence of the union instead of marking time. Webster, wiser than his critics, was not sure that the union could be saved by war. The south was united and exasperated by its failure to establish slavery in the territory wrested from Mexico, and a convention had been called to meet at Nashville in June to consider the suj^posed grievances of the slave-holding states. The north was not united. Intemperate abolitionists were denouncing the constitu- * I append, at page 51, an extract from Calhoun's speech on the compromise measures read in the senate on March 4, 1850. Calhoun was present, but too ill to deliver the speech himself. 26 WEBSTER'S WORK tion as '*a compact with hell," and demanding a dissolu- tion of the union with slave-holders, and Clay was urging compromise. A wise statesman cannot disregard the sentiment of the hour in which he is called upon to act in an emergency, and his conduct often must be influenced by his responsibility. Indeed, during the winter of 1860-1861, after the union had begun to dissolve, the Re- publican party raised the white flag at Washington re- peatedly, but did not succeed in surrendering to the slave power, and so averting or postponing war. It would require many portly volumes to hold all that has been said in condemnation and approval of Webster 's speech on the seventh of March, and of his subsequent support of the compromise measures. Those who con- sider the matter under the impression that Webster was arguing in favor of the institution of slavery find no diffi- culty in reaching the conclusion that Whittier hastily expressed in "Ichabod" and retracted in "The Lost Occasion." Book men generally have inclined to the opinion that Webster's course in 1850 was inconsistent with his previous record on slavery and a dark shadow on his fame. The late Professor Von Hoist is conspicu- ous among those who have judged Webster unjustly by letters and lamplight alone; but Carl Schurz, with a stronger congenital disposition to find fault, was saved from falling so deeply into the same error by the fact that before passing judgment on Webster, in his life of Clay, he had been a senator himself, and partly realized the truth of Burke's familiar observation that "all gov- ernment — indeed, every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act — is founded on com- promise and barter." If official action, which necessarily recognized slavery, FOR THE UNION 27 were convincing evidence of approval of slavery, even Washington was not faultless. The noble Virginian was the first to sign the constitution with its provision for return of fugitive slaves ; he also signed the fugitive slave law of 1793, and, besides, was a slave-holder himself. But Washington so disliked slavery that he set his slaves free by his will, and his fame has survived his connection with an institution that came to be regarded as "the sum of all villainies ' ' by the quickened conscience of a later day. The problem Webster had to deal with was not whether slavery was right or wrong. He never ceased to call it a moral and political wrong, that should not be extended beyond the states where it existed. A fair judgment of the compromise measures of 1850 can only be rendered after considering all of the elements of the transaction. 