"This reasoning mistakes the age. The time has been, indeed,
when fleets, and armies, and subsidies, were the principal
reliances even in the best cause. But, happily for mankind,
there has arrived a great change in this respect. Moral
causes come into consideration, in proportion as the
progress of knowledge is advanced; and the _public opinion_
of the civilized world is rapidly gaining an ascendency over
mere brutal force. It is already able to oppose the most
formidable obstruction to the progress of injustice and
oppression; and, as it grows more intelligent and more
intense, it will be more and more formidable. It may be
silenced by military power, but it cannot be conquered. It
is elastic, irrepressible, and invulnerable to the weapons
of ordinary warfare. It is that impassable, unextinguishable
enemy of mere violence and arbitrary rule, which, like
Milton's angels,
'Vital in every part,
Cannot, but by annihilating, die.'
"Until this be propitiated or satisfied, it is vain for
power to talk either of triumphs or of repose. No matter
what fields are desolated, what fortresses surrendered, what
armies subdued, or what provinces overrun. In the history of
the year that has passed by us, and in the instance of
unhappy Spain, we have seen the vanity of all triumphs, in a
cause which violates the general sense of justice of the
civilized world. It is nothing, that the troops of France
have passed from the Pyrenees to Cadiz; it is nothing that
an unhappy and prostrate nation has fallen before them; it
is nothing that arrests, and confiscation, and execution,
sweep away the little remnant of national resistance. There
is an enemy that still exists to check the glory of these
triumphs. It follows the conqueror back to the very scene of
his ovations; it calls upon him to take notice that Europe,
though silent, is yet indignant; it shows him that the
sceptre of his victory is a barren sceptre; that it shall
confer neither joy nor honour, but shall moulder to dry
ashes in his grasp. In the midst of his exultation, it
pierces his ear with the cry of injured justice, it
denounces against him the indignation of an enlightened and
civilized age; it turns to bitterness the cup of his
rejoicing, and wounds him with the sting which belongs to
the consciousness of having outraged the opinion of mankind.
"In my own opinion, Sir, the Spanish nation is now nearer,
not only in point of time, but in point of circumstance, to
the acquisition of a regulated government, than at the
moment of the French invasion. Nations must, no doubt,
undergo these trials in their progress to the establishment
of free institutions. The very trials benefit them, and
render them more capable both of obtaining and of enjoying
the object which they seek." page 253.
How completely does the mighty drama now passing before our eyes on the
great theatre of Europe, justify these hold and sagacious predictions! A
great revolution has just taken place in France, and a distinguished
prince, out of the regular line of succession, has been invited to the
throne, _on condition_ of governing according to the constitution
prescribed by the representatives of the popular will. Belgium is doing
the same thing. Devoted Poland has attempted it. Italy is in
confusion,--and Germany disturbed and uneasy;--so that, it seems already
no longer to be in the power of any conspiracy of kings or Congresses,
to maintain permanently in Western Europe, a government not essentially
founded on free institutions and principles. We will only add, that Mr.
Webster has, on hardly any other occasion, entered into the discussion
of European politics; and the consequence has been, that, if this speech
has found less favour at home than some of his other efforts, it is one,
that has brought him great honour abroad; since, besides being printed
wherever the English tongue is spoken, it has been circulated through
South America, and published in nearly every one of the civilized
languages of Europe, including the Spanish and the Greek.
In April, 1824, he took a part in the great discussion of the tariff
question; and his speech on that occasion, as well as the one he
delivered on the same subject in May, 1828, are both given in the volume
before us. But the whole matter is so fresh in the recollections of the
community, and Mr. Webster's constant defence of a tariff adapted to the
general interests of the country, encouraging alike the cause of
American manufactures and the interests of commerce, are so well known,
from the first tariff of 1816, to the present moment, that it cannot be
needful to speak of them. We would remark, however, that, in the speech
of 1824, two subjects are discussed with great ability;--the doctrine of
exchange, and the balance of trade. Both of them had been drawn into
controversy in Congress, on previous occasions, quite frequently,
calling forth alternately "an infinite deal of nothing," and the crudest
absurdities; but, from the period of this thorough and statesmanlike
examination of them, they have, we believe, hardly been heard of in
either house. The great points involved in both of them, have been
considered as settled.
We have thus far spoken of Mr. Webster almost entirely as a public
orator and debater, or as a jurist. But there is another point of view,
in which he is less known to the nation, but no less valued at
Washington. He has few equals in the diligence of the committee-rooms.
Reputation in and out of Congress, is, in this respect, very differently
measured. Nothing is more common in either House than moderately good
speakers, prompt in common debate, and sufficiently well instructed not
to betray themselves into contempt with the public. Because they _can_
speak and _do_ speak; and especially because they speak _often_ and
_vehemently_, they obtain a transient credit abroad for far more than
they are worth, and far more than they are, at last, able to maintain.
It may, indeed, be said, as a general truth, that those who speak most
frequently in Congress are least heeded, and least entitled to
distinction. Members of real ability speak rarely; and, when they do
speak, it is from the fulness of their minds, after a careful
consideration of the subject, and with a deference for the body they
address, and a regard to the public service, which does not permit them
to occupy more time than the development of their subject absolutely
requires. They are, therefore, always heard with attention and respect;
and often with the conviction, that they may be safely followed.
But there is another class in Congress, less known to the public at
large, and yet whose services are beyond price. We speak now of those
excellent men, who, as chairmen and members of the committees, in the
retired corners of the capitol, are doing the real business of
legislation, and giving their days and nights to maturing schemes of
wise policy and just relief; men who are content, week after week, and
month after month, to sacrifice themselves to the negative toil of
saving us from the follies of indiscreet, meddlesome, and ignorant
innovators, or from the more presumptuous purposes of those who would
make legislation the means of furthering and gratifying their own
private, unprincipled ambition. Such business-men,--who should be the
heads of the working party, if such a party should ever be formed,--are
well understood within the walls of Congress. They are marked by the
general confidence that follows them; and when they speak, to propose a
measure, they are listened to; nay, it may almost be said, they are
obeyed.
Mr. Webster has long been known as an efficient labourer in these
noiseless toils of the committee-rooms and of practical legislation; and
we owe to his hand not a few important improvements in our laws. The
most remarkable is, probably, the Crimes-Act of 1825, which, in
twenty-six sections, did so much for the criminal code of the country.
The whole subject, when he approached it, was full of difficulties and
deficiencies. The law in relation to it remained substantially on the
foundation of the first great Act of 1790, ch. 36. That act, however,
though deserving praise as a first attempt to meet the wants of the
country, was entirely unsuited to its condition, and deficient in most
important particulars. Its defects, indeed, were so numerous, that half
the most notorious crimes, when committed where the general government
alone could have cognizance of them, were left beyond the reach of human
law and punishment;--rape, burglary, arson and other malicious burnings
in forts, arsenals, and light-house establishments, together with many
other offences, being wholly unprovided for. Mr. Webster's Act, which,
as a just tribute to his exertions, already bears his name, cures these
gross defects, besides a multitude of others; and it was well known at
the time, that he wished to go much further, and give a competent system
to the country on the whole criminal code, but was deterred by the
danger of failure, if he attempted too much at once. Indeed, the
difficulty of obtaining a patient hearing for any bill of such
complexity and extent, is well understood in Congress; and it is not,
perhaps, an unjust reproach upon our national legislature to confess,
that even the most experienced statesmen are rarely able to carry
through any great measure of purely practical improvement. Temporary
projects, and party strifes, and private claims, and individual
jealousies, and, above all, the passion for personal display in
everlasting debate, offer obstacles to the success of mere patriotism
and statesmanship, which are all but insurmountable. Probably no man, at
that time, but Mr. Webster, who, in addition to his patient habits of
labour in the committee-room, possessed the general confidence of the
House, and had a persevering address and promptitude in answering
objections, could have succeeded in so signal an undertaking. Sir Samuel
Romilly and Mr. Peel have acquired lasting and merited reputations in
England for meliorations of their criminal code. But they had a willing
audience, and an eager support. Mr. Webster, without either, effected as
much in his Crimes-Act of 1825, as has been effected by any single
effort of these statesmen, and is fairly to be ranked with them among
those benefactors of mankind, who have enlightened the jurisprudence of
their country, and made it at once more efficient and more humane.
At the same session of Congress, the great question of internal
improvements came up, and was vehemently discussed in January, on the
appropriation made for the western national road. Mr. Webster defended
the principle, as he had already defended it in 1816; and as he has
defended it constantly since, down to the last year and the last
session, without, so far as we have seen, receiving any sufficient
answer to the positions he took in debate on these memorable occasions.
Perhaps the doctrine he has so uniformly maintained on this subject, is
less directly favourable to the interests of the northern than of the
western states; but it was high-toned and national throughout, and seems
in no degree to have impaired the favour with which he was regarded in
New-England. At any rate, he was re-elected, with singular unanimity, to
represent the city of Boston in the nineteenth Congress, and took his
seat there anew in December, 1825.
In both sessions of this Congress, important subjects were discussed,
and Mr. Webster bore an important part in them; but we can now only
suggest one or two of them. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he
introduced the bill for enlarging the number of judges of the Supreme
Court of the United States. His views in relation to it are contained in
the remarks he made on the occasion, and had great weight with the
House; but the bill was afterwards lost through an amendment of the
Senate. So, too, on the question of the Panama mission, involving the
points that were first moved in 1796 in the House of Representatives, on
occasion of the British Treaty, Mr. Webster has left on record his
opinions, doctrines, and feelings, in a speech of great beauty and
power, which will always be recurred to, whenever the right of the House
of Representatives to advise the executive in relation to the management
of foreign missions may come under discussion. But we are compelled to
abstain from any further notice of them both, by want of room.
In 1826, he had been elected, we believe, all but unanimously, to
represent the City of Boston, in the House of Representatives; but,
before he took his seat, a vacancy having occurred in the Senate, he was
chosen to fill it by the Legislature of Massachusetts, of which, a great
majority in both its branches, besides the council and the governor,
belonged to the old republican party of the country. He was chosen, too,
under circumstances, which showed how completely his talents and lofty
national bearing had disarmed all political animosities, and how
thoroughly that commonwealth claimed him as her own, and cherished his
reputation and influence as a part of her treasures. There was no
regular nomination of him from any quarter, nor any regular opposition;
and he received the appointment by a sort of general consent and
acclamation, as if it were given with pride and pleasure, as well as
with unhesitating confidence and respect.
How he has borne himself in the Senate during the four sessions he has
sat there, is known to the whole country. No man has been found tall
enough to overshadow him; no man has been able to attract from him, or
to intercept from him, the constant regard of the nation. He has been so
conspicuous, so prominent, that whatever he has done, and whatever he
has said, has been watched and understood throughout the borders of the
land, almost as familiarly and thoroughly as it has been at Washington.
But though the eyes of all have thus been fastened on him in such a way,
that nothing relating to him can have escaped their notice, there is yet
one occasion, where he attracted a kind and degree of attention, which,
as it is rarely given, is so much the more honourable when it is
obtained. We refer now, of course, to the occasion, when, in 1830, he
overthrew the Doctrines of Nullification. Undoubtedly, in one sense of
the word, Mr. Webster was taken completely by surprise, when these
doctrines, for the first time in the history of the country, were
announced in the Senate; since he was so far from any particular
preparation to meet or answer them, that it was almost by accident he
was in his place, when they were so unexpectedly, at least to him and
all his friends, brought forth. In another and better sense of the
phrase, he was not taken by surprise at all; for the time was already
long gone by, when, on any great question of national interest or
constitutional principle, he could be taken unprepared or unarmed. We
mean by this, that the discussion of the most important points in the
memorable debate alluded to, came on incidentally; or rather that these
points were thrust forward by a few individuals, who seemed
predetermined to proceed under cover of them, to the ultimate limits of
personal and party violence.
Mr. Foot's resolution to inquire respecting the sales and the surveys of
western lands, was the innocent cause of the whole conflict. It was
introduced on the 29th of December, 1829; and was not then expected by
its author, or, perhaps, by any body else to excite much discussion, or
lead to any very important results. When it was introduced, Mr. Webster
was absent from Washington. Two days afterwards he took his seat. The
resolution had, indeed, called forth a few remarks, somewhat severe, the
day after it was presented, and then had been postponed to the next
Monday; but, apparently from want of interest in its fate, or from the
pressure of more important business, it was not called up by the mover
till January 13. From this time, a partial discussion began; but it
lingered rather lifelessly, and, in fact, really rose even to
skirmishing only one day, until the 19th, when General Hayne, a
distinguished senator from South Carolina, in a vehement and elaborate
speech, attacked the New-England States for what he considered their
selfish opposition to the interests of the West; and endeavoured to show
that a natural sympathy existed between the Southern and Western States,
upon the distribution and sales of the public lands, which would
necessarily make them a sort of natural allies. With this speech, of
course, the war broke out.
While it was delivering, Mr. Webster entered the Senate. He came from
the Supreme Court of the United States; and the papers in his hands
showed how far his thoughts were from the subjects and the tone, which
now at once reached him. As soon as General Hayne sat down, he rose to
reply; but Mr. Benton of Missouri, with many compliments to General
Hayne, and apparently willing the Senate should have all the leisure
necessary to consider and feel the effects of his speech, moved an
adjournment; Mr. Webster good naturedly consented. Of course, he had the
floor the next day; and in a speech, which will not be forgotten by the
present generation, poured out stores of knowledge long before
accumulated, in relation to the history of the public lands and to the
legislation concerning them; defending the policy of the government
towards the new states; showing the dangerous tendency of the doctrines
respecting the Constitution, current at the South, and sanctioned by
General Hayne; and repelling the general charges and reproaches cast on
New-England, especially the charge of hostility to the West, which,--if
there was meaning in words or acts,--he proved to be distinctly
applicable to the language and votes of the South Carolina delegation in
the House of Representatives in 1825. The war was thus, at once, carried
into the enemy's country.
The next day, January 21, it being well known that Mr. Webster had
urgent business, which called him again into the Supreme Court of the
United States, one of the members from Maryland moved an adjournment of
the debate. It would, perhaps, have been only what is customary and
courteous, if the request had been granted. But General Hayne objected.
"The gentleman," he said, "had discharged his weapon, and he (Mr. H.)
wished for an opportunity to return the fire." To which Mr. Webster
having replied;--"I am ready to receive it; let the discussion go
on;"--the debate was resumed. Mr. Benton then concluded some important
remarks he had begun the day before; and Mr. Hayne rose, and opened a
speech, which occupied the Senate the remainder of that day, and the
whole of the day following. It was a vigorous speech, embracing a great
number of topics and grounds;--calling in question the fairness of
New-England, the consistency of Mr. Webster, and the patriotism of the
State of Massachusetts;--and ending with a bold, acute, and elaborated
exposition and defence of the doctrines now, for the first time,
formally developed in Congress, and since well known by the name of the
_Doctrines of Nullification_. The first part of the speech was caustic
and personal; the latter part of it grave and argumentative;--and the
whole was delivered in presence of an audience, which any man might be
proud to have collected to listen to him.
Mr. Webster took notes during its delivery; and it was apparent to the
crowd, which, for two days, had thronged the senate-chamber, that he
intended to reply. Indeed, on this point, he was permitted no choice. He
had been assailed in a way, which called for an answer. When, therefore,
the doors of the senate-chamber were opened the next morning, the rush
for admittance was unprecedented. Mr. Webster had the floor, and rose.
The first division of his speech is in reply to parts and details of his
adversary's personal assault,--and is a happy, though severe specimen of
the keenest spirit of genuine debate and retort;--for Mr. Webster is one
of those dangerous adversaries, who are never so formidable or so
brilliant, as when they are most rudely pressed;--for then, as in the
phosphorescence of the ocean, the degree of the violence urged, may
always be taken as the measure of the brightness that is to follow. On
the present occasion, his manner was cool, entirely self-possessed, and
perfectly decided, and carried his irony as far as irony can go. There
are portions of this first day's discussion, like the passage relating
to the charge of sleeping on the speech, he had answered; the one in
allusion to Banquo's ghost, which had been unhappily conjured up by his
adversary; and the rejoinder respecting "one Nathan Dane of Beverly, in
Massachusetts,"--which will not be forgotten. The very tones in which
they were uttered, still vibrate in the ears of those who heard them.
There are, also, other and graver portions of it,--like those which
respect the course of legislation in regard to the new states; the
conduct of the North in regard to slavery, and the doctrine of internal
improvements,--which are in the most powerful style of parliamentary
debate. As he approaches the conclusion of this first great division of
his speech, he rises to the loftiest tone of national feeling, entirely
above the dim, misty region of sectional or party passion and
prejudice:--
"The eulogium pronounced on the character of the state of
South Carolina, by the honourable gentleman, for her
revolutionary and other merits, meets my hearty concurrence.
I shall not acknowledge that the honourable member goes
before me in regard for whatever of distinguished talent, or
distinguished character, South Carolina has produced. I
claim part of the honour, I partake in the pride, of her
great names. I claim them for countrymen, one and all. The
Laurenses, the Rutledges, the Pinckneys, the Sumpters, the
Marions--Americans, all--whose fame is no more to be hemmed
in by state lines, than their talents and patriotism were
capable of being circumscribed within the same narrow
limits. In their day and generation, they served and
honoured the country, and the whole country; and their
renown is of the treasures of the whole country. Him, whose
honoured name the gentleman himself bears--does he esteem me
less capable of gratitude for his patriotism, or sympathy
for his sufferings, than if his eyes had first opened upon
the light of Massachusetts, instead of South Carolina? Sir,
does he suppose it in his power to exhibit a Carolina name,
so bright, as to produce envy in my bosom? No, Sir,
increased gratification and delight, rather. I thank God,
that, if I am gifted with little of the spirit which is able
to raise mortals to the skies, I have yet none, as I trust,
of that other spirit, which would drag angels down. When I
shall be found, Sir, in my place here, in the Senate, or
elsewhere, to sneer at public merit, because it happens to
spring up beyond the little limits of my own state, or
neighbourhood; when I refuse, for any such cause, or for any
cause, the homage due to American talent, to elevated
patriotism, to sincere devotion to liberty and the country;
or, if I see an uncommon endowment of Heaven--if I see
extraordinary capacity and virtue in any son of the
South--and if, moved by local prejudice, or gangrened by
state jealousy, I get up here to abate the tithe of a hair
from his just character and just fame, may my tongue cleave
to the roof of my mouth!
"Sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections--let me indulge
in refreshing remembrance of the past--let me remind you
that in early times, no states cherished greater harmony,
both of principle and feeling, than Massachusetts and South
Carolina. Would to God that harmony might again return!
Shoulder to shoulder they went through the revolution--hand
in hand they stood round the administration of Washington,
and felt his own great arm lean on them for support. Unkind
feeling, if it exist, alienation and distrust, are the
growth, unnatural to such soils, of false principles since
sown. They are weeds, the seeds of which that same great arm
never scattered.
"Mr. President, I shall enter on no encomium upon
Massachusetts--she needs none. There she is--behold her, and
judge for yourselves. There is her history: the world knows
it by heart. The past, at least, is secure. There is Boston,
and Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker Hill--and there they
will remain forever. The bones of her sons, falling in the
great struggle for independence, now lie mingled with the
soil of every state, from New England to Georgia; and there
they will lie forever. And, Sir, where American liberty
raised its first voice; and where its youth was nurtured and
sustained, there it still lives, in the strength of its
manhood and full of its original spirit. If discord and
disunion shall wound it--if party strife and blind ambition
shall hawk at and tear it--if folly and madness--if
uneasiness, under salutary and necessary restraint--shall
succeed to separate it from that union, by which alone its
existence is made sure, it will stand, in the end, by the
side of that cradle in which its infancy was rocked: it will
stretch forth its arm with whatever of vigour it may still
retain, over the friends who gather round it; and it will
fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the proudest monuments
of its own glory, and on the very spot of its origin." pages
406, 407.
The next day, Mr. Webster went into a grave and formal examination of
_the doctrines of nullification_, or the right of the state legislatures
to interfere, whenever, in their judgment, the general government
transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of its
laws. Four days had hardly elapsed, since this doctrine had been
announced with an air of assured success in the Senate; and these four
days had been filled with active debate and contest. Of course, here
again, there had been neither time nor opportunity for especial
preparation. Happily, too, there was no need of it. The fund, on which
the demand was so triumphantly made, was equal to the draft, great and
unexpected as it was. Mr. Webster's mind is full of constitutional law
and legislation. On all such subjects, he needs no forecast, no
preparation, no brief;--and, on this occasion, he had none. He but
uttered opinions and arguments, which had grown mature with his years
and his judgment, and which were as familiar to him as household words.
We have, therefore, no elaborate, documentary discussion,--no citation
of books or authorities. It is with principles, great constitutional
principles, he deals; and it is in plain, direct arguments, which all
can understand, that he defends them. There is nothing technical,
nothing abstruse, nothing indirect, either in the subject or its
explanation. On the contrary, all is straight forward--obvious--to the
purpose. For instance, after stating the question at issue to be,
"_whose prerogative is it, to decide on the constitutionality or
unconstitutionality of the laws?_" he goes on:--
"This leads us to inquire into the origin of this
government, and the source of its power. Whose agent is it?
Is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the
creature of the people? If the government of the United
States be the agent of the state governments, then they may
control it, provided they can agree in the manner of
controlling it; if it be the agent of the people, then the
people alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or reform
it. It is observable enough, that the doctrine for which the
honourable gentleman contends, leads him to the necessity of
maintaining, not only that this general government is the
creature of the states, but that it is the creature of each
of the states severally; so that each may assert the power,
for itself, of determining whether it acts within the limits
of its authority. It is the servant of four and twenty
masters, of different wills and different purposes, and yet
bound to obey all. This absurdity (for it seems no less)
arises from a misconception as to the origin of this
government and its true character. It is, Sir, the people's
constitution, the people's government,--made for the
people,--made by the people,--and answerable to the people.
The people of the United States have declared that this
constitution shall be the supreme law. We must either admit
the proposition, or dispute their authority. The states are,
unquestionably, sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is
not affected by this supreme law. But the state
legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are
yet not sovereign over the people. So far as the people have
given power to the general government, so far the grant is
unquestionably good, and the government holds of the people,
and not of the state governments. We are all agents of the
same supreme power, the people.--The general government and
the state governments derive their authority from the same
source. Neither can, in relation to the other, be called
primary, though one is definite and restricted, and the
other general and residuary. The national government
possesses those powers which it can be shown the people have
conferred on it, and no more. All the rest belongs to the
state governments, or to the people themselves. So far as
the people have restrained state sovereignty, by the
expression of their will, in the constitution of the United
States, so far, it must be admitted, state sovereignty is
effectually controlled. I do not contend that it is, or
ought to be controlled farther. The sentiment to which I
have referred, propounds that state sovereignty is only to
be controlled by its own "feeling of justice;" that is to
say, it is not to be controlled at all; for one who is to
follow his own feelings is under no legal control.--Now,
however men may think this ought to be, the fact is, that
the people of the United States have chosen to impose
control on state sovereignties. There are those, doubtless,
who wish they had been left without restraint; but the
constitution has ordered the matter differently. To make
war, for instance, is an exercise of sovereignty; but the
constitution declares that no state shall make war. To coin
money is another exercise of sovereign power; but no state
is at liberty to coin money. Again, the constitution says
that no sovereign state shall be so sovereign as to make a
treaty. These prohibitions, it must be confessed, are a
control on the state sovereignty of South Carolina, as well
as of the other states, which does not arise "from her own
feelings of honourable justice." Such an opinion, therefore,
is in defiance of the plainest provisions of the
constitution." pages 410, 411.
Again, what can be more sure and convincing than such plain reasoning as
this:--
"I maintain, that, between submission to the decision of the
constituted tribunals, and revolution, or disunion, there is
no middle ground--there is no ambiguous condition, half
allegiance, and half rebellion. And, Sir, how futile, how
very futile it is, to admit the right of state interference,
and then attempt to save it from the character of unlawful
resistance, by adding terms of qualification to the causes,
and occasions, leaving all these qualifications, like the
case itself, in the discretion of the state governments. It
must be a clear case, it is said, a deliberate case; a
palpable case; a dangerous case. But then the state is still
left at liberty to decide for herself, what is clear, what
is deliberate, what is palpable, what is dangerous. Do
adjectives and epithets avail any thing? Sir, the human mind
is so constituted, that the merits of both sides of a
controversy appear very clear, and very palpable, to those
who respectively espouse them; and both sides usually grow
clearer as the controversy advances. South Carolina sees
unconstitutionality in the tariff; she sees oppression
there, also; and she sees danger. Pennsylvania, with a
vision not less sharp, looks at the same tariff, and sees no
such thing in it--she sees it all constitutional, all
useful, all safe. The faith of South Carolina is
strengthened by opposition, and she now not only sees, but
_resolves_, that the tariff is palpably unconstitutional,
oppressive, and dangerous: but Pennsylvania, not to be
behind her neighbours, and equally willing to strengthen her
own faith by a confident asseveration, _resolves_, also, and
gives to every warm affirmative of South Carolina, a plain,
downright, Pennsylvania negative. South Carolina, to show
the strength and unity of her opinion, brings her assembly
to a unanimity, within seven voices; Pennsylvania, not to be
outdone in this respect more than others, reduces her
dissentient fraction to a single vote. Now, Sir, again, I
ask the gentleman, what is to be done? Are these states both
right? Is he bound to consider them both right? If not,
which is in the wrong?--or rather, which has the best right
to decide? And if he, and if I, are not to know what the
constitution means, and what it is, till those two state
legislatures, and the twenty-two others, shall agree in its
construction, what have we sworn to, when we have sworn to
maintain it? I was forcibly struck, Sir, with one
reflection, as the gentleman went on in his speech. He
quoted Mr. Madison's resolutions, to prove that a state may
interfere, in a case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous
exercise of a power not granted. The honourable member
supposes the tariff law to be such an exercise of power; and
that, consequently, a case has arisen in which the state
may, if it see fit, interfere by its own law. Now, it so
happens, nevertheless, that Mr. Madison deems this same
tariff law quite constitutional. Instead of a clear and
palpable violation, it is, in his judgment, no violation at
all. So that, while they use his authority for a
hypothetical case, they reject it in the very case before
them. All this, Sir, shows the inherent--futility--I had
almost used a stronger word--of conceding this power of
interference to the states, and then attempting to secure it
from abuse by imposing qualifications, of which the states
themselves are to judge. One of two things is true; either
the laws of the Union are beyond the discretion, and beyond
the control of the states; or else we have no constitution
of general government, and are thrust back again to the days
of the confederacy." pp. 416, 417.
This is a striking fact about Mr. Madison; but one still more striking
occurred after the publication of the speech. His great name and
authority had been constantly and confidently appealed to, not only in
this debate, by General Hayne, but, on previous occasions, by other
favourers of the South Carolina doctrines, until at last it began to be
almost feared, that Mr. Madison sustained the positions of the
nullifiers. But as he had already shown that the tariff law was quite
constitutional, so, now, with no less promptness and power, he came out
against the whole doctrine of nullification, and showed that his
resolutions of 1798, on which its friends had rested the wild fabric of
their argument, as its main pillars, had nothing to do with it; and
thus, in conjunction with what had been done in the Senate, brought down
the whole temple they had built with such pains and cost, upon the heads
of their uncircumcised presumption and extravagance. His letter, indeed,
on this subject, is one of the most characteristic efforts of his great
wisdom, and one of the most important results of this discussion, since
it took from the advocates of nullification all the support of his
authority--the _magni nominis umbra_--the shade and shelter of his great
name.
But to return to Mr. Webster; the general tone of the last half of his
speech is uncommonly grave and imposing; but there is one passage in
which a lighter accent is assumed. It is that in which he runs out
General Hayne's nullifying doctrine into practice, and sets him, as a
military man, to execute his own nullifying law. The argument of this
passage is the more efficacious, because it is concealed under so much
wit and good-humour.
"And now, Mr. President, let me run the honourable
gentleman's doctrine a little into its practical
application. Let us look at his probable _modus operandi_.
If a thing can be done, an ingenious man can tell _how_ it
is to be done. Now, I wish to be informed, _how_ this state
interference is to be put in practice. We will take the
existing case of the tariff law. South Carolina is said to
have made up her opinion upon it. If we do not repeal it,
(as we probably shall not,) she will then apply to the case
the remedy of her doctrine. She will, we must suppose, pass
a law of her legislature, declaring the several acts of
Congress, usually called the Tariff Laws, null and void, so
far as they respect South Carolina, or the citizens thereof.
So far, all is a paper transaction, and easy enough. But the
collector at Charleston, is collecting the duties imposed by
these tariff laws--he, therefore, must be stopped. The
collector will seize the goods if the tariff duties are not
paid. The state authorities will undertake their rescue; the
marshal, with his posse, will come to the collector's aid,
and here the contest begins. The militia of the state will
be called out to sustain the nullifying act. They will
march, Sir, under a very gallant leader: for I believe the
honourable member himself commands the militia of that part
of the state. He will raise the _Nullifying Act_ on his
standard, and spread it out as his banner. It will have a
preamble, bearing that the tariff laws are palpable,
deliberate, and dangerous violations of the Constitution! He
will proceed, with his banner flying, to the custom-house in
Charleston;
'All the while,
Sonorous metal blowing martial sounds.'
Arrived at the custom-house, he will tell the collector that
he must collect no more duties under any of the tariff laws.
This, he will be somewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a
grave countenance, considering what hand South Carolina
herself had in that of 1816. But, Sir, the collector would,
probably, not desist, at his bidding. He would show him the
law of Congress, the treasury instruction, and his own oath
of office. He would say, he should perform his duty, come
what might. Here would ensue a pause: for they say that a
certain stillness precedes the tempest. The trumpeter would
hold his breath awhile, and before all this military array
should fall on the custom-house, collector, clerks, and all,
it is very probable some of those composing it, would
request of their gallant commander-in-chief, to be informed
a little upon the point of law; for they have, doubtless, a
just respect for his opinions as a lawyer, as well as for
his bravery as a soldier. They know he has read Blackstone
and the Constitution, as well as Turrene and Vauban. They
would ask him, therefore, something concerning their rights
in this matter. They would inquire, whether it was not
somewhat dangerous to resist a law of the United States.
What would be the nature of their offence, they would wish
to learn, if they, by military force and array, resisted the
execution in Carolina of a law of the United States, and it
should turn out, after all, that the law _was
constitutional_? He would answer, of course, treason. No
lawyer could give any other answer. John Fries, he would
tell them, had learned that some years ago. How, then, they
would ask, do you propose to defend us? We are not afraid of
bullets, but treason has a way of taking people off, that we
do not much relish. How do you propose to defend us? 'Look
at my floating banner,' he would reply, 'see there the
_nullifying law_!' Is it your opinion, gallant commander,
they would then say, that if we should be indicted for
treason, that same floating banner of yours would make a
good plea in bar? 'South Carolina is a sovereign state,' he
would reply. That is true--but would the judge admit our
plea? 'These tariff laws,' he would repeat, 'are
unconstitutional, palpably, deliberately, dangerously.' That
all may be so; but if the tribunal should not happen to be
of that opinion, shall we swing for it? We are ready to die
for our country, but it is rather an awkward business, this
dying without touching the ground! After all, that is a sort
of _hemp_-tax, worse than any part of the tariff.
Mr. President, the honourable gentleman would be in a
dilemma, like that of another great general. He would have a
knot before him which he could not untie. He must cut it
with his sword. He must say to his followers, defend
yourselves with your bayonets; and this is war--civil war."
pp. 421, 422.
After this his tone becomes even more grave and solemn than before,
until, when he approaches the conclusion, he bursts forth with the
expression of feelings of attachment to the Union and the Constitution,
which it seemed no longer possible for him to suppress. We should quote
the passage, but that it has been quoted every where, and is familiar to
every body.
We forbear to pursue this debate any further. Mr. Hayne replied in a
short speech, which he afterwards expanded in the newspapers into a long
one; and Mr. Webster rejoined with a syllogistic brevity, exactness, and
power, which carried with them the force and conclusiveness of a
demonstration; and thus ended the discussion as between these two. It
was afterwards continued, however, for several weeks, and a majority, or
nearly a majority, of the whole Senate took part in it; but whenever it
is now recollected or referred to, the contest between the two principal
speakers, from the 19th to the 23d of January, is, we believe, generally
intended.
The results of this memorable debate are already matter of history. The
vast audience that had contended for admission to the senate-chamber,
till entrance became dangerous, were the first to feel and make known
its effect; for, with his peculiar power of explaining abstruse and
technical subjects, so that all can comprehend them, Mr. Webster there
expounded a great doctrine of the constitution, which had been
powerfully assailed, so that all might feel the foundations on which it
rests, to have been consolidated rather than disturbed by the attempt to
shake them. Their verdict, therefore, was given at the time, and heard
throughout the country. But since that day, when the crowd came out of
the senate-chamber rejoicing in the victory which had been achieved for
the constitution, nearly twenty editions of the same argument have been
called for in different parts of the country, and thus scattered abroad
above an hundred thousand copies of it, besides the countless multitudes
that have been sent forth by the newspapers, until almost without a
metaphor, it may be said to have been carried to every fire-side in the
land. The very question, therefore, which was first submitted to an
audience in the capitol,--comprising, indeed, a remarkable
representation of the talents and authority of the country, but still
comparatively small,--has since been submitted by the press to the
judgment of the nation, more fully, probably, than any thing of the kind
was ever submitted before; and the same remarkable plainness, the same
power of elucidating great legal and constitutional doctrines till they
become as intelligible and simple as the occupations of daily life, has
enlarged the jury of the senate-chamber till it has become the jury of
the whole people, and the same verdict has followed. What, therefore,
Chancellor Kent said in relation to it, is as true as it is
beautiful;--"Peace has its victories as well as war;"--and the triumph
which Mr. Webster thus secured for a great constitutional principle, he
may now well regard, as the chief honour of his life.
Indeed, a man such as he is, when he looks back upon his past life, and
forward to the future, must needs feel, that his fate and his fortunes,
his fame and his ambition, are connected throughout with the fate and
the fortunes of the constitution of his country. He is the child of our
free institutions. None other could have produced or reared him;--none
other can now sustain or advance him. From the days when, amidst the
fastnesses of nature, his young feet with difficulty sought the rude
school-house, where his earliest aspirations were nurtured, up to the
moment when he came forth in triumph from the senate-chamber, conscious
that he had overthrown the Doctrines of Nullification, and contended
successfully for the Union of the States, he must have felt, that his
extraordinary powers have constantly depended for their development and
their exercise on the peculiar institutions of our free governments. It
is plain, indeed, that he has thriven heretofore, by their progress and
success; and it is, we think, equally plain, that in time to come, his
hopes and his fortunes can be advanced only by their continued stability
and further progress. We think, too, that Mr. Webster feels this. On all
the great principles of the constitution, and all the leading interests
of the country, his opinions are known; his ground is taken; his lot is
cast. Whoever may attack the Union on any of the fundamental doctrines
of our government, he must defend them. _Prima fortuna salutis monstrat
iter._ The path he has chosen, is the path he must follow. And we
rejoice at it. We rejoice, that such a necessity is imposed on such a
mind. We rejoice, that, even such as he cannot stand, unless they
sustain the institutions that formed them; and that, what is in itself
so poetically just and so morally beautiful, is enforced by a
providential wisdom, which neither genius nor ambition can resist or
control. We rejoice, too, when, on the other hand, a man so gifted,
faithfully and proudly devotes to the institutions of his country the
powers and influence they have unfolded and fostered in him, that, in
his turn, he is again rewarded with confidence and honours, which, as
they can come neither from faction nor passion, so neither party
discipline nor political violence can diminish nor impair them. And,
finally, and above all, we rejoice for the great body of the people,
that the decided and unhesitating support they have so freely given to
the distinguished Senator, with whose name "this land now rings from
side to side," because he has triumphantly defended the Union of the
States and the principles of the Constitution;--we rejoice, we say, _for
the people_, because, such a support given by them for such a cause, not
only strengthens and cements the very foundations of whatever is most
valuable in our government; but at the same time, warns and encourages
all who would hereafter seek similar honours and favours, to consult for
the course they shall follow, neither the indications of party nor the
impulses of passion, but to address themselves plainly, fearlessly,
calmly, directly to the intelligence and honesty of _the whole nation_,
"and ask no omen but their country's cause."
[Footnote 5: These are the last words of the speech; and the sentiment
they contain in favour of a navy and naval protection, has been
maintained with great earnestness by Mr. Webster for nearly thirty
years, on all public occasions. In an oration delivered July 4th, 1806,
and printed at Concord, N. H., he says, "an immense portion of our
property is in the waves. Sixty or eighty thousand of our most useful
citizens are there, and are entitled to such protection from the
government as their case requires." In another oration, delivered in
1812, and printed at Portsmouth, he says, "a navy sufficient for the
defence of our coasts and harbours, for the convoy of important branches
of our trade, and sufficient, also, to give our enemies to understand,
when they injure us, that _they_ too are vulnerable, and that we have
the power of retaliation as well as of defence, seems to be the plain,
necessary, indispensable policy of the nation. It is the dictate of
nature and common sense, that means of defence shall have relation to
the danger." These doctrines in favour of a navy were extremely
unwelcome to the nation when they were delivered; the first occasion
referred to, being just before the imposition of the embargo; and the
second, just before the capture of the Guerriere. How stands the
national sentiment now? Who doubts the truth of what Mr. Webster could
not utter in 1806 and 1812 without exciting ill-will to himself?]
[Footnote 6: North American Review, 1821. Vol. xii. p. 342.]
[Footnote 7: See the beautiful passage respecting the fortune and the
life of John Adams at p. 44.]
[Footnote 8: In an able article on the battle of Bunker's Hill, which is
found in the North American Review, 1818, VII. 225-258, and is
understood to have been written by Mr. Webster, he says,--"In truth, if
there was any commander-in-chief in the action, it was Prescott. From
the first breaking of the ground to the retreat, he acted _the most
important part_; and if it were now proper to give the battle a name
from any distinguished agent in it, it should be called, Prescott's
battle." We have no doubt this is but an exact measure of justice to one
of those who hazarded all in our revolution, when the hazard was the
greatest. The whole review is strong, and no one hereafter can write the
history of the period it refers to, without consulting it. The opening
description of the battle is beautiful and picturesque.]