Daniel Webster was born in the town of Salisbury, New Hampshire,
January 18, 1782. His father, Major Ebenezer Webster, was one of the
pioneers of the settlement in that quarter. He served with credit in
the old French war, and also in the war of the revolution, especially
under Stark, at Bennington. Major Webster established himself in a
newly-granted township at the confluence of the Winnipisiogee and
Pemigewasset, after the peace of 1763. In this region, then lying
almost in a state of nature, the great orator and statesman was born,
and passed the first years of his life. His opportunities of education
were very deficient, and he was indebted for his earliest instruction
to his mother, who was a woman of character and intelligence. For a
few months only, in 1796, he enjoyed the advantages of Phillips’
Exeter academy. Here his education for college commenced; it was
completed under the Rev. Dr. Wood, of Boscawen. He entered Dartmouth
college in 1797, and during the four years of his study there, gave
plain indications of future eminence. Soon after his graduation, he
engaged in professional studies, first in his native village, and
afterward at Fryeburg, in Maine, where at the same time he had the
charge of an academy. He eked out his frugal salary by acting as a
copyist in the office of register of deeds. He was moved to these
strenuous exertions by the wish to aid his brother to obtain a college
education. Having completed his law-studies in the office of governor
Gore, of Boston, he was admitted to the bar of Suffolk, Massachusetts,
in the year 1805. He immediately commenced the practice of law in his
native state and county. His father, a man of sterling sense and
character, who for the last twelve years of his life had been a judge
of the court of common pleas, died in 1806, but not without the
satisfaction of hearing his son’s first speeches at the bar. In 1807,
Mr. Webster removed to Portsmouth in his native state, and soon became
engaged in a most respectable and extensive, but not very lucrative
practice. In 1812, he was chosen one of the members of congress from
New Hampshire, and in due time was reëlected. Although among the
youngest members of the house of representatives, and entirely without
legislative experience, he rose at once to the front rank, both in the
despatch of business and in debate. Among his associates in the house
were Clay, Cheves, Lowndes, Calhoun, Forsyth, and other members of
great ability. It was soon felt and admitted that he was worthy to be
named with the ablest of them. It was the remark of Mr. Lowndes ‘that
the south had not his superior, nor the north his equal.’ Finding the
professional fields at Portsmouth inadequate to the support of a
growing family, Mr. Webster removed to Boston in 1816. His
professional reputation had grown as rapidly as his fame as a
statesman. He placed himself at once by the side of the leaders of the
Massachusetts bar. He had already appeared before the supreme court of
the United States in Washington. By his brilliant argument in the
Dartmouth college case, carried by appeal to Washington in 1817, he
took rank among the most distinguished jurists in this country. In
1820, Mr. Webster was chosen a member of a convention called for the
purpose of revising the constitution of Massachusetts. No one
exercised a more powerful influence over its deliberations. He was
offered, about this time, a nomination as a senator of the United
States, but declined. In 1822, he yielded to the most pressing
solicitations to become a candidate for the place of representative of
the city of Boston in the eighteenth congress, and was chosen by a
very large majority. This step involved a great sacrifice of
professional interest. He took his seat in Congress in December, 1823,
and early in the session made his celebrated speech on the Greek
revolution, an effort which at once established his reputation as one
of the first statesmen of the age. In the autumn of the same year he
was reëlected by a vote of 4,990, out of 5,000 cast. In 1826 he was
again a candidate, and not a hundred votes were thrown against him.
Under the presidency of Mr. Adams (1825-29), he was the leader of the
friends of the administration, first in the house of representatives,
and afterward in the senate of the United States, to which he was
elected in June, 1827. His great speech on the Panama mission was made
in the first session of the nineteenth congress. When the tariff law
of 1824 was brought forward, Mr. Webster spoke with great ability
against it on the ground of expediency. He represented one of the
greatest commercial constituencies in the Union; and his colleagues,
with a single exception, voted with him against the bill. This law,
however, forced a large amount of the capital of New England into
manufactures; and in 1828 Mr. Webster sustained the law of that year
for a more equal adjustment of the benefits of protection. The change
which took place in his course in this respect was the result of the
circumstances alluded to, and was approved by his constituents. Mr.
Webster remained in the senate under the administration of Gen.
Jackson, and Mr. Van Buren, a period of twelve years. During this time
the most important questions were discussed, measures of the highest
moment to the country were brought forward, and political events and
combinations of the most novel and extraordinary character succeeded
each other. Under all changes of men and measures, Mr. Webster
maintained the position of a constitutional and patriot statesman,
second to none who had ever devoted himself to the service of his
country. In 1830, he made what is generally regarded the ablest of his
parliamentary efforts, his second speech in reply to colonel Hayne of
South Carolina. This gentleman in a speech on a resolution moved by
Mr. Foote, of Connecticut, relative to the surveys of the public
lands, had indulged in some personalities against Mr. Webster, had
commented with severity on the political course of the New England
states, and had laid down in rather an authoritative manner those
views of the constitution usually known as the doctrines of
‘nullification.’ Mr. Webster was accordingly called upon to defend
himself from the insinuations of the distinguished senator from South
Carolina, to vindicate New England, and to point out the fallacies of
nullification. To accomplish these objects, he employed all the
resources of the most skillful rhetoric, polished sarcasm, and acute
argument. The records of modern eloquence contain nothing of superior
force and beauty. The second speech of Mr. Webster in this debate may
be regarded as the greatest effort of this consummate orator. Shaping
his public course by principle, and not by the blind impulse of party,
Mr. Webster, though opposed to the administration of General Jackson,
gave it a cordial support in its measures for the defense of the Union
in 1832-’33. The doctrines of the president’s proclamation against the
theories of South Carolina were mainly adopted from Mr. Webster’s
speeches, and he was the chief dependence of the administration upon
the floor of congress. When, however, the financial system of general
Jackson was brought forward and fully developed, it was strenuously
opposed by Mr. Webster. He foretold with accuracy the explosion which
took place in the spring of 1837, and contributed materially to rally
the public opinion of the country alike against the first phase of the
new financial system, which was that of an almost boundless expansion
of paper currency, issuing from the state banks, and against the
opposite extreme, which was adopted as a substitute, that of an
exclusive use of specie in all payments to or by the government. Mr.
Webster maintained with great force of argument, and variety of
illustration, the superior convenience of the financial system which
had been adopted in the infancy of the government, with the approval
of every administration, from that of Washington down, viz: that of a
mixed currency of specie and convertible paper, kept within safe
bounds by the law requiring all payments to be made in specie or its
equivalent, and regulated by a national institution acting as a check
upon the state banks. The clear and forcible manner in which these
principles were inculcated by Mr. Webster contributed materially to
the downfall of Mr. Van Buren’s administration. In 1839, Mr. Webster
made a short visit to Europe. His time was principally passed in
England, but he devoted a few weeks to the continent. His fame had
preceded him to the old world, and he was received with the attention
due to his character and talents at the French and English courts, and
in the highest circles of both countries. On the accession of General
Harrison to the presidency, Mr. Webster was placed at the head of his
cabinet as secretary of state. His administration of the department
during the two years he remained in it was signalized by the most
distinguished success. The United States was at that time involved in
a long standing controversy with Great Britain, on the subject of the
northeastern boundary of Maine. To this had been added the difficult
questions arising out of the detention of American vessels by British
cruisers on the coast of Africa. Still more recently, the affair of
M’Leod, in New York, had threatened an immediate rupture between the
two governments. The correspondence between the United States’
minister, in London, in 1841, Mr. Stevenson and the British secretary
of state for foreign affairs, Lord Palmerston, was of an
uncompromising character. Other causes of mutual irritation existed,
which the limits of this sketch do not permit us to enumerate.
[Illustration: DANIEL WEBSTER.]
[Illustration: RESIDENCE OF DANIEL WEBSTER.]
Shortly after the accession of General Harrison, the Melbourne
administration was overturned in England, and Sir Robert Peel returned
to power. This cotemporary change of government in the two countries
was favorable to a settlement of the long-standing difficulties. Mr.
Webster, after coming into the department of state, intimated to the
British minister that the government of the United States was
convinced of the impossibility of settling the boundary-line by
adhering to the course hitherto pursued――that of topographical
explorations, with a view to the literal execution of the treaty of
1783――but was prepared to adopt a conventional line, on the basis of
mutual gain and concession, if such a line could be agreed upon. The
new ministry, taking advantage of this overture, immediately
determined to send Lord Ashburton as a special envoy to the United
States, to negotiate upon this and the other subjects in controversy.
Massachusetts and Maine were invited to take part by their
commissioners in the negotiation; and on August 9, 1842, the treaty of
Washington was ratified by the senate. By this treaty the boundary
dispute, which had lasted fifty years, was happily adjusted. An
amicable and efficient arrangement was made for joint action in the
suppression of the slave-trade, and an agreement entered into for a
mutual extradition of fugitives from justice. The other subjects of
discussion at that period, between Great Britain and the United
States, with the exception of the Oregon boundary, were happily
disposed of in the correspondence accompanying the treaty. The terms
of this important treaty were equally honorable and satisfactory to
both parties. Mr. Tyler’s cabinet was broken up in 1842, but Mr.
Webster remained in office till the spring of 1843, being desirous of
putting some other matters connected with our foreign relations in a
prosperous train. Steps were taken by him in the winter of 1842-’3,
which led to the recognition of the independence of the Sandwich
islands by the principal maritime powers. His last official act was
the preparation of the instructions of General C. Cushing, as
commissioner for negotiating a treaty with China. With the
commencement of Mr. Polk’s administration, Mr. Webster returned to the
senate of the United States. He remained a member of that body during
the whole of the administration of Mr. Polk, and till the death of
General Taylor. Though unconnected with the executive government, he
rendered the most material service in the settlement of the Oregon
dispute. It has been publicly stated by Mr. M’Gregor, the
distinguished member of parliament for Glasgow, that a letter written
to him by Mr. Webster, and shown to the British ministers, led them to
agree to the adoption of the line of boundary which was established in
1846. Mr. Webster opposed the Mexican war on principle; and in the
full persuasion, which events have confirmed, that acquisitions of
territory would disturb the balance of the Union, and endanger its
stability. He, however, concurred in granting the supplies which were
required for the efficient conduct of the war. His second son, Major
Edward Webster, with the entire approbation of his father, accepted a
commission in the Massachusetts regiment of volunteers, and sunk under
the exposures of the service in Mexico. He was a young man of great
promise. In conformity with Mr. Webster’s anticipations, the
acquisition of Mexican territory led to agitations on the subject of
slavery, which, during the years 1849-’50, seriously threatened the
Union. The question whether slavery should exist in California seemed
likely to lead to the renewal of the Missouri controversy, aggravated
by all the bitterness which has grown out of the struggles of the last
fifteen years. Mr. Webster entertained the most serious apprehensions
of an inauspicious result. The convention of the people of California
having unanimously adopted a constitution by which that question was
disposed of, without the interference of congress, Mr. Webster
conceived the hope that, by mutual concession on other and less
important points, the harmony of the South and North could be
restored, and a severance of the Union averted. With a view to this
consummation, he made his great speech of March 7, 1850. A very
powerful influence was exerted by this speech on the public mind.
While the debates on what have been called the ‘compromise measures’
were in progress in the senate, General Taylor died. The chair of
state was assumed by President Fillmore, who immediately called Mr.
Webster to the department of state. His administration of the office
was marked with characteristic ability and success. In a series of
public addresses of unsurpassed ability, made in different parts of
the Union, he enforced the great duty of mutual concession, in
reference to the sectional controversy which so seriously alarmed the
country. In December, 1850, the famous Hülsemann letter was written,
to which Kossuth has applied the epithet of ‘immortal.’ Mr. Webster,
by his firm and judicious manner of treating the Cuba question,
obtained of the Spanish government the pardon of the followers of
Lopez, who had been deported to Spain. About the same time, he
received from the English government an apology for the interference
of a British cruiser with an American steamer in the waters of
Nicaragua. This is the second time that the British government has
made a similar concession at the instance of Mr. Webster. The first
was in reference to the destruction of the ‘Caroline,’ at Schlosser.
It has been affirmed that these are the only occasions on which the
British government has ever apologized for the conduct of its affairs.
Mr. Webster’s intellectual efforts were not confined to politics. He
filled a place second to none of his cotemporaries at the American
bar, and his discourses upon various historical and patriotic
anniversaries are among the brightest gems of modern eloquence. The
works of Mr. Webster have been lately published in six volumes, 8vo,
with a biographical memoir by Mr. Edward Everett, from which the
preceding sketch has been for the most part extracted. He died at his
residence in Marshfield, Massachusetts, on the 24th day of October,
1852.