POLITICAL WRITINGS.
We have seen that a man who made a spelling-book could be a patriot in
making it; it is easy to believe that a patriot in Webster's day could
be a very active participant in public affairs. There was as yet no
marked political class; every man of education was expected to write,
talk, and act in politics, and Webster's temperament and education were
certain to make him interested and active. He began very early to have a
hand in those letters to newspapers which preceded the editorial article
of the modern newspaper. The printer of a newspaper was substantially
its editor, and was likely to be a man engaged in public affairs, but
his paper was less the medium for his own views than a convenient
vehicle for carrying the opinions and arguments of lawyers, ministers,
and others.
Webster began contributing to the "Connecticut Courant," published in
Hartford, as early as 1780, his first contribution being some remarks on
Benedict Arnold's letter of October 7th to the inhabitants of America.
He wrote again the next week on Arnold's treason, and for the next four
or five years was an occasional contributor upon subjects of finance,
banking, the pay of soldiers, congressional action, events of the war,
and copyright. "In 1783," he writes of himself, "the discontents in
Connecticut, excited by an opposition to the grant of five years' extra
pay to the officers of the army, became alarming, and two thirds of the
towns sent delegates to a convention in Middletown to devise measures to
prevent the resolve of Congress from being carried into execution. I
then commenced my career as a political writer, devoting weeks and
months to support the resolves of Congress.... Of the discontents in
Connecticut in 1783, which threatened a commotion, there is no account
in any of the histories of the United States,--not even in
Marshall's,--except a brief account in my history; the present
generation being entirely ignorant of the events. The history of this
whole period, from the peace of 1783 to the adoption of the
Constitution, is, in all the histories for schools, except mine, a
barren, imperfect account; although it was a period of great anxiety,
when it was doubtful whether anarchy or civil war was to be our
fate."[10]
This was written in 1838, when Webster was eighty years old. The
character of that interregnum of 1783-1789 is more generally recognized
now; and it is interesting to see how an old man, recalling his earliest
entrance into public life, emphasizes the service which he rendered upon
the side of good government. By early associations, and by the
predilections of a mind which inherited a large share of Anglo-Saxon
political sense, Webster was from the first a Federalist in politics. In
1785 he published a pamphlet entitled "Sketches of American Policy,"
which he always claimed was the first public plea for a government to
take the place of the Confederation, under which the war had been
carried on. He held a correspondence with Mr. Madison, in 1805, for the
purpose of substantiating this claim, since it had recently been
asserted that the federal government sprang from Hamilton's thought. Mr.
Madison very temperately and sensibly wrote to Webster:--
"The change in our government, like most other important improvements,
ought to be ascribed rather to a series of causes than to any particular
and sudden one, and to the participation of many rather than to the
efforts of a single agent. It is certain that the general idea of
revising and enlarging the scope of the federal authority, so as to
answer the necessary purposes of the Union, grew up in many minds, and
by natural degrees, during the experienced inefficacy of the old
Confederation. The discernment of General Hamilton must have rendered
him an early patron of the idea. That the public attention was called to
it by yourself at an early period is well known."
We are not especially concerned with Webster's claim except as it
illustrates his character and activity. He was a busy-body, if I may
recover to better uses a somewhat ignoble word. We have seen him
traveling back and forth, visiting the state capitals and public men in
behalf of his "Grammatical Institute," lecturing and writing, projecting
magazines, and putting himself into the midst of whatever was going on.
The air was full of political talk, and Webster was the conductor that
drew off some of it. He rushed eagerly into pamphlet-writing, both
because he had something to say, and because he never stepped back to
see if any one else was about to say it. He had no public character to
preserve, and he issued his pamphlet as he delivered his sentiments upon
many subjects,--to whomever he might catch. He carried it to Mount
Vernon and put it into the hands of General Washington, and Madison saw
it there. The nickname of the Monarch, which Belknap and Hazard gave
him, fitted a young man of aggressive self-confidence, who saw no reason
why he should not have his say upon the subject which was upper-most in
men's minds, and used the means most natural to him and most convenient.
Alexander Hamilton was but a year older than Noah Webster, and was
indeed a much younger man when he first took part in the discussion of
public affairs. Hamilton was a man with a genius for statesmanship; in
Webster we see very significantly marks of political common sense, the
presence of which in the American mind at that day made Hamilton's
leadership possible. It would be hard to find a better illustration of
the average political education of Americans of the time than is shown
by Webster in this pamphlet and in other of his writings. We are
accustomed sometimes to speak of the Constitution as a half-miraculous
gift to the American people, and to look with exceptional reverence upon
the framers of that instrument. Well, that mind is on the whole quite as
sound as the contemptuous tone taken by Von Holst when he affirms that
"the Constitution had been extorted from the grinding necessity of a
reluctant people."[11] In these words, however, Von Holst himself
scarcely does justice to his own convictions, and they are rather an
extreme form of protest against an extravagant adulation of the
Constitution. Better instruments on paper have been drawn and applied to
conditions of society which were fatal to their efficacy; but the
calling of the convention, the framing of the Constitution, and the
final adoption were possible because in the community at large the ideas
of freedom and of self-government had already been formulated in local
institutions for generations, and for generations had been moulding the
character of the popular thought. The towns, the parishes, the boroughs,
of the early colonies were the inheritors of communal ideas which had
filtered from Germanic free communities through English parishes; under
the favoring conditions of a new world and its unchecked enterprise they
had become political units of great integrity. The colonies, with their
local government, modified rather than controlled by royal or
proprietary influence, had already learned many lessons of autonomy: the
period of the war had confirmed these several powers, and the conclusion
of the war found them still in possession of their interior organic
life, and lacking only that sovereignty which they had resisted and
overthrown. But the state life was incomplete: there was an absence of a
solid sovereignty in which the States could rest, and the political
thought of the independent colonies required for its final fulfillment
the depositary of national consciousness which the King and Parliament
had been, but could no longer be. It was the working out of this
practical political thought which issued in the Constitution and central
government, and it was possible to be worked out only because there had
been generations of Americans trained in political life.
Webster was one of these men. He was the product of the forces which had
been at work in the country from the earliest days. English freedom,
which had forced its ways to these shores, had grown and increased under
the fostering care of self-government and native industry. He had been
born and brought up in a New England country village, the type of the
freest and most determinate local government; he had been educated at a
democratic college; he had shouldered his musket in a war for the
defense not of his State alone, but of his country, vague and ill
defined though its organic form might be. When, therefore, the war was
over, and the country was free and compelled to manage its own affairs,
he was qualified to take part in that management, and his temper led him
to look for fundamental grounds of conduct.
His "Sketches of American Policy" thus interests us as the political
thinking of a young American, of lively disposition, candid mind, and
rash confidence. It could not help being a reflection of other
literature and thought; but its best character is in its sturdy and
resolute assertion of English freedom as requiring a central authority
in which to rest. It is curious, in the opening pages, to see how, in
his theories of government, he is led away by the popular and alluring
philosophy of Rousseau and Rousseau's interpreter, Jefferson. When he
undertakes to explain the rationale of government he is a young man,
captivated by the current mode; when he reaches the immediate, practical
duty he is an Englishman, speaking to the point, and lighting upon the
one unanswerable demand of American political life at the time. In the
earlier pages of his "Sketches" he lays down his Theory of Government,
which is, in brief, that of the _contrat social_, but presented in a
homely form, which brings it nearer to the actual life of men; he
concludes his observation with a definition of the most perfect
practicable system of government as "a government where the right of
_making_ laws is vested in the greatest number of individuals, and the
power of _executing_ them in the smallest number." "In large
communities," he adds, "the individuals are too numerous to assemble for
the purpose of legislation: for which reason, the people appear by
substitutes or agents,--persons of their own choice. A representative
democracy seems, therefore, to be the most perfect system of government
that is practicable on earth." He finds no such government on the
Continent of Europe, or in history; but when he comes to America he
views with satisfaction a state of things which renders possible the
actual fulfillment of his ideal. "America, just beginning to exist, has
the science and the experience of all nations to direct her in forming
plans of government." There is an equal distribution of landed property,
freed from the laws of entail and primogeniture; there is no standing
army, and there is freedom from ecclesiastical tyranny; education is
general; there is no artificial rank in society, and from necessity
Americans are not confined to single lines of industry; but various
occupations will meet in one man. "Knowledge is diffused and genius
roused by the very situation of America."
From these considerations he proceeds to lay down a "Plan of Policy for
improving the Advantages and perpetuating the Union of the American
States." This union, he shows, cannot depend upon a standing army, upon
ecclesiastical authority, or upon the fear of an external force; it must
find its reason in the constitutions of the States, and he sees,
therefore, the need of a supreme head, in which the power of all the
States is united. "There must be a supreme head, clothed with the same
power to make and enforce laws respecting the general policy of all the
States, as the legislatures of the respective States have to make laws
binding on those States respecting their own internal police. The truth
of this is taught by the principles of government, and confirmed by the
experience of America. Without such a head the States cannot be
_united_, and all attempts to conduct the measures of the continent will
prove but governmental farces. So long as any individual State has power
to defeat the measures of the other twelve, our pretended union is but a
name, and our confederation a cobweb." He illustrates his point by the
analogy of the Constitution of Connecticut. It is clear that by the head
of the Union he meant the combined executive and legislative force,
which in the Constitution was vested in the President and Congress. He
recognizes the necessity of an authoritative head, but he had not in his
own mind separated the powers of government. He clings fast to the
doctrine that all power is vested in the people, and proceeds from the
people, and he pleads for such a union as may be analogous to the union
of towns in the State, where the power of all the towns united is
compulsory over the conduct of a single member. "The general concerns of
the continent may be reduced to a few heads; but in all the affairs that
respect the whole, Congress must have the same power to enact laws and
compel obedience throughout the continent as the legislatures of the
several States have in their respective jurisdictions. If Congress have
any power, they must have the whole power of the continent. Such a power
would not abridge the sovereignty of each State in any article relating
to its own government. The internal police of each State would be still
under the sole superintendence of its legislature. But in a matter that
equally respects all the States no individual State has more than a
thirteenth part of the legislative authority, and consequently has no
right to decide what measure shall or shall not take place on the
continent. A majority of the States _must_ decide; our confederation
cannot be permanent unless founded on that principle; nay, more, the
States cannot be said to be _united_ till such a principle is adopted in
its utmost latitude. If a single town or precinct could counteract the
will of a whole State, would there be any government in that State? It
is an established principle in government that the will of the minority
must submit to that of the majority; and a single State or a minority of
States ought to be disabled to resist the will of the majority, as much
as a town or county in any State is disabled to prevent the execution
of a statute law of the legislature. It is on this principle, and _this
alone_, that a free State can be governed; it is on this principle alone
that the American States can exist as a confederacy of republics. Either
the several States must continue separate, totally independent of each
other, and liable to all the evils of jealousy, dispute, and civil
dissension,--nay, liable to a civil war, upon any clashing of
interests,--or they must constitute a general head, composed of
representatives from all the States, and vested with the power of the
whole continent to enforce their decisions. There is no other
alternative. One of these events must inevitably take place, and the
revolution of a few years will verify the prediction."
In answering possible objections to the scheme, he rests in the power of
the people, who "forever keep the sole right of legislation in their own
representatives, but divest themselves wholly of any right to the
administration." He refuses to believe that there is any danger from
centralization so long as the people use the power which is vested in
them. "These things," he concludes, "demand our early and careful
attention: a general diffusion of knowledge; the encouragement of
industry, frugality, and virtue; and a sovereign power at the head of
the States. _All_ are essential to our peace and prosperity, but on an
energetic continental government principally depend our tranquillity at
home and our respectability among foreign nations. We ought to
generalize [that is, delocalize] our ideas and our measures. We ought
not to consider ourselves as inhabitants of a particular State only, but
as _Americans_, as the common subjects of a great empire. We cannot and
ought not wholly to divest ourselves of provincial views and
attachments, but we should subordinate them to the general interests of
the continent. As a member of a family every individual has some
domestic interests; as a member of a corporation he has other interests;
as an inhabitant of a State he has a more extensive interest; as a
citizen and subject of the American empire he has a national interest
far superior to all others. Every relation in society constitutes some
obligations, which are proportional to the magnitude of the society. A
good prince does not ask what will be for the interest of a county or
small district in his dominions, but what will promote the prosperity of
his kingdom. In the same manner, the citizens of this New World should
inquire, not what will aggrandize this town or that State, but what will
augment the power, secure the tranquillity, multiply the subjects, and
advance the opulence, the dignity, and the virtues, of the United
States. Self-interest, both in morals and politics, is and ought to be
the ruling principle of mankind; but this principle must operate in
perfect conformity to social and political obligations. Narrow views and
illiberal prejudices may for a time produce a selfish system of politics
in each State; but a few years' experience will correct our ideas of
self-interest, and convince us that a selfishness which excludes others
from a participation of benefits is, in all cases, self-ruin, and that
_provincial_ interest is inseparable from _national interest_."
It will be seen that Webster, though confused sometimes in his
phraseology, and weak in his philosophy, did see with an English
freeman's political instinct the practical bearings of his subject, and
in his broad, comprehensive survey disclosed that large American
apprehension of freedom and nationality which underlay the best thought
of his time. His pamphlet is not a piece of elegant writing, and it is
introduced by superficial theorizing; but the practical value is great.
Thoughts which have so entered into our political consciousness as to be
trite and commonplace are presented as the new possession of a young man
lately from college, and it is fair to judge of the current speculation
of his time by the results here gathered into logical order. Webster, as
I said before, may be taken in this pamphlet as an admirable example of
the American political thinker, who has worked out, under the new
conditions of this continent, ideas and principles which his ancestors
brought from England. He thinks he has invented something new, but the
worth of his thought is in its experience. In a period when every one
was engaged in rearranging the universe upon some improved plan of his
own, it is not surprising that those who thought they had a brand-new
nation on their hands should have made a serious business of
nationalizing themselves. They thought they were starting afresh from a
purely philosophical basis, and they were greatly concerned about their
premises; as a matter of fact, their premises were often highly
artificial, while their conclusions were sound, for these really drew
their life from the historic development of free institutions, and the
nation which was formally instituted had long had an organic process.
Webster himself, twenty years after, when referring to this pamphlet,
had the good sense to say, "The remarks in the first three sketches are
general, and some of them I now believe to be too visionary for
practice; but the fourth sketch was intended expressly to urge, by all
possible arguments, the necessity of a radical alteration in our system
of general government, and an outline is there suggested." He adds, "As
a private man, young and unknown, I could do but little; but that little
I did."
In the autumn of 1786 he went to Philadelphia at the invitation of
Franklin, and stayed there a year. He maintained himself in part by
teaching, being master of an Episcopal academy; but his interest
centred upon the debates of the Constitutional Convention, then in
session, and a month after it rose he published "An Examination of the
Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," which was, in effect, a
popular defense of the work of the Convention, especially as regards the
division of the legislature into two houses. The paper shows rather zeal
and fervor than acuteness, and seems to have been hastily written to
serve some special and temporary purpose. It has a magniloquence not
elsewhere found in his writings, as when he says: "This western world
now beholds an æra important beyond conception, and which posterity will
number with the age of the Czar of Muscovy, and with the promulgation of
the Jewish laws at Mount Sinai. The names of those men who have digested
a system of constitutions for the American empire will be enrolled with
those of Zamolxis and Odin, and celebrated by posterity with the honors
which less enlightened nations have paid to the fabled demi-gods of
antiquity.... In the formation of our Constitution the wisdom of all
ages is collected; the legislators of antiquity are consulted, as well
as the opinions and interests of the millions who are concerned. In
short, it is an empire of reason." In all this there is a flurry of
enthusiasm which was not confined to Webster.
Later still, in 1793, he was placed in a more responsible position, as
editor of a new daily newspaper in New York. He had been writing under
the signature of Candor in the "Courant" upon the French Revolution,
taking a somewhat Gallican position, when he chanced to meet Genet at
dinner in New York. Conversation with that gentleman caused a change in
his views, and it was during this visit to New York that Mr. James
Watson proposed to him to establish a newspaper there in the defense of
Washington's administration. With his ardent attachment to Washington,
and his adhesion generally to the federal party, he accepted the
invitation, and established the "American Minerva," which subsequently
became the "New York Commercial Advertiser." In conducting the paper he
introduced an economical device, which was novel at the time, but has
since become an established mode with daily newspapers: he issued a
semi-weekly paper, called the "Herald," which was made up from the
columns of the daily "Minerva" without recomposition of type.
The political situation which led to the establishment of the "Minerva"
was that created by the intrigues of Citizen Genet, and by the bitter
hostility to Washington's administration on the part of the French
sympathizers. Washington had issued his proclamation of neutrality, and
the Jacobin clubs had opened upon him with their newspapers and
pamphlets and public addresses in the most virulent manner. It is
scarcely too much to say that the animosity between the French and
anti-French parties in the United States was keener--it certainly was
madder--than that which had existed between Americans and Englishmen
during the war which had so lately closed. The earlier movements of the
French Revolution had called out in America even more than in England
the liveliest expectations of a golden age. Americans, flattered by the
French alliance and by the reputation in which their young republic was
held, were intoxicated with vanity, and filled also with an eager hope
that principles of which they were standard-bearers were to be dominant
in Europe. The theoretical and _doctrinaire_ views which seemed for the
time to be justified by the success of the American people came to stand
for universal principles of reason, capable of bearing all the weight of
human experience, and of serving in the place of religion. The most
enthusiastic, beholding a new era, were only a few steps in advance of
more cautious men, and the new _régime_ in France received the sympathy
not only of Jefferson and Madison, but of Washington and Hamilton. It
was only when the flood-gates were opened that the uniform sentiment was
broken in upon, and parties were formed of "Gallo-maniacs" on one side,
as their enemies called them, and anti-Gallicans on the other. But this
split into two parties had occurred before Genet arrived, and the breach
was only widened by that head-strong minister's action. There can be
little doubt that the prudence of Washington, aided by the conservative
Hamilton and the unwilling Jefferson, saved the country at the time
from committing itself to the insanity of active coöperation with the
raging French republic.
The support of the administration was to be looked for not only in
legislatures, but in the public press, which was rapidly becoming a
power in the country. Certainly the flames of passion and prejudice were
fanned most persistently by such journalists as Freneau and Bache on one
side, and Cobbett on the other, and it was evident that the war over the
question was to be fought largely in the columns of newspapers.
Webster's federalism was staunch, so was his personal loyalty to
Washington; but I think he was asked to manage the new paper chiefly
because in his writings thus far, both upon political and general
topics, he had shown himself to have that direct and homely style which
makes itself understood by the people because it is in the dialect of
the people. At any rate, he began at once vigorously to write and print
articles bearing upon the great question of the day. He informed himself
of the historical process of the French Revolution, but whatever he
wrote was in reference to the effect upon the United States. Webster's
patriotism was the best education for a true regard of public affairs in
France. His instinct for unity, his conception of the future of the
United States, his unbounded faith in American ideas, all served to make
him fight any proposal which would complicate the United States with
foreign powers.
His hand is seen in various parts of the paper for the five years during
which he was connected with it. The French Revolution and all the
complications growing out of it were treated with steadfast reference to
the interests of the United States, and blows were dealt unceasingly
upon the democratic party, as the anti-Federalists were beginning to
call themselves. Webster digested the foreign news, wrote articles and
paragraphs, and used the machinery which belonged to a paper of that
day. It is not unlikely that he wrote letters to himself; it is certain
that he wrote a series of essays entitled "The Times," pithy, forcible
homilies and comments, expressed generally in a colloquial form, and
intended, evidently, to be driven home sharply and positively. I give an
extract from one as indicating something of the manner of these
_conciones ad populum_:--
... "Our government is a government of universal toleration. The freedom
of America, its greatest blessing, secures to every citizen the right of
thinking, of speaking, of worshiping and acting as he pleases, provided
he does not violate the laws. The only people in America who have dared
to violate this freedom are the democratical incendiaries, who have
proceeded to threaten violence to tories and aristocrats and federal
republicans; that is, to people not of their party. Every threat of this
kind is an act of tyranny; an attempt to abridge the rights of a
fellow-citizen. If a man is persecuted for his opinions, it is wholly
immaterial whether the persecution springs from one man or from a
society of the people,--when men are disposed to persecute. Power is
always right; weakness always wrong. Power is always insolent and
despotic: whether exercised in throwing its opposers into a bastile;
burning them at the stake; torturing them on a rack; beheading them with
a guillotine; or taking them off, as at the massacre of St. Bartholomew,
at a general sweep. Power is the same in Turkey as in America. When the
will of man is raised above law, it is always tyranny and despotism,
whether it is the will of a bashaw or of bastard patriots."
The articles which Webster contributed in reviewing the historical
movement of the French Revolution were worked over into a pamphlet,
which he published in 1794. There were other questions belonging to this
time which grew out of the relations between the young republic and
European nations. In running over the files of the "Minerva," one is
struck with the predominating influence of Europe in American affairs.
Every change which took place abroad was watched with reference to its
influence on home politics. The habit of regarding America as dependent
upon Europe, which underlay so much of the thought of the time, was not
easily laid aside, and the tests applied to the conduct of American
affairs were of European precedents. The secretary of state was then and
long after the leading man of the Cabinet. It is indeed only lately that
his comparative importance has been lessened, and that of the
secretaries of the treasury and of the interior increased.
Webster's pen was employed on the great questions which arose on the
rights of neutral nations, and especially on the policy contained in
Jay's Treaty. In vindication of this treaty he published a series of
papers, under the signature of Curtius, twelve in all, but the sixth and
seventh were contributed by James Kent, afterward Chancellor Kent. The
papers came out at the same time with the series signed Camillus,
written by Hamilton and King.[12] When the first number of Curtius
appeared, Jefferson wrote of it to Madison: "I send you by post one of
the pieces, Curtius, lest it should not have come to you otherwise. It
is evidently written by Hamilton, giving a first and general view of the
subject, that the public mind might be kept a little in check, till he
could resume the subject more at large from the beginning, under his
second signature, Camillus.... I gave a copy or two, by way of
experiment, to honest-hearted men of common understanding, and they
were not able to parry the sophistry of Curtius. I have ceased,
therefore, to give them. Hamilton is really a colossus to the
anti-republican party.... For God's sake, take up your pen, and give a
fundamental reply to Curtius and Camillus." But Madison did not yield to
Jefferson's entreaty. In these papers Webster reviewed the treaty
article by article, and kept closely to his text, in the last number
only enlarging upon the insidious character of much of the opposition to
the treaty, as connected with the machinations of the French party. It
was not without reason that Mr. King expressed the opinion to Mr. Jay
"that the essays of Curtius had contributed more than any other papers
of the same kind to allay the discontent and opposition to the treaty;"
assigning as a reason that they were peculiarly well adapted to the
understanding of the people at large.
Webster had the newspaper faculty, and was as omniscient as any editor
need be. A consideration of his general labors belongs elsewhere, but it
ought to be noted here that he was prompt to see the perils which
underlay American slavery. He discussed the subject, indeed, chiefly in
its industrial relations, but he regarded these as affecting parties and
national well-being. As early as 1793 he delivered an address before the
Connecticut Society for the Promotion of Freedom "On the Effects of
Slavery on Morals and Industry," and shortly afterward expanded the
address into a treatise. His work bristles with historical
illustrations, for it was the habit then more than later to draw
inferences from foreign facts; there had not yet accumulated that great
swelling volume of home testimony which made reference to experience
outside of America unnecessary and rather impertinent. His remedy for
the existing evil is the elevation of slaves to the rank of tenants, not
in a sudden emancipation, but in the gradual selection of the most
capable, and he finds his most satisfactory example in the experiment
made thirty years before by the Chancellor of Poland. The appeal is not
greatly to the conscience, but to the interest of men. He sums up the
argument at the close with the words: "The industry, the commerce, and
the moral character of the United States will be immensely benefited by
the change. Justice and Humanity require it; Christianity _commands_
it." He had not long been conducting the "Minerva" before he took up the
subject again, reminding the public of this treatise. "In that
pamphlet," he says, "I endeavored to show by arguments and facts that
the labor of slaves is less productive than that of freemen. A doctrine
of this kind, if clearly and incontrovertibly established, will perhaps
go farther in abolishing the practice of enslaving men than any
declamation on the immorality and cruelty of the practice." He then
takes up the statistics which had accumulated since the publication of
his pamphlet, showing in a forcible manner that the Northern Free States
were steadily gaining on the Southern Slave States, and carries forward
the argument with great acuteness. "What," he asks, "has produced this
difference in the productiveness of the labor in the Northern division?
Peace and good markets have been common to both divisions; and the
laboring people in the Northern States were as free before the year 1791
as since. What, then, has stimulated the industry of the free laborers
since that period? The answer is obvious. An augmentation of capital
operating upon their free labor. It is probable there has been an
augmentation of capital throughout the United States, though I am
convinced that augmentation has been much greater in the Northern than
in the Southern. But my general remark is that an increase of capital
must be felt by the laboring people themselves to produce its full
effect in stimulating industry. The benefits of capital and good markets
in the Northern States are experienced by the men who labor; in the
Southern States this is not the case among the slaves, who make a great
proportion among the laborers. It is of little consequence to a slave
whether his master employs in business ten thousand or one thousand, or
whether he gets four dollars or two for a hundred of tobacco. In both
cases he plods on at his task with the same slow, reluctant pace. A
_freeman_, on the other hand, labors with double diligence when he gets
a high price for his produce; and this I apprehend to be a principal
cause which has in the last two years occasioned such a surprising
difference of exports in favor of the Northern States."
Webster's connection with the "Minerva" continued for about five years,
when he abandoned it as unprofitable; but his industry may be inferred
from the fact that his writings upon the paper, inclusive of
translations from foreign languages, would amount to twenty octavo
volumes.
His withdrawal from the conduct of a daily newspaper did not mean his
indifference to public affairs. Near the close of his stay in New York
he wrote "A Letter on the Value and Importance of the American Commerce
to Great Britain, addressed to a Gentleman of Distinction in London."
His aim was to emphasize the judgment that the commercial interests of
the two countries were closely interwoven, and that in the complication
of European politics the United States, if compelled to make any
alliance, was most naturally related to England. In 1802 he published
his laborious and learned "Essay on the Rights of Neutral Nations," in
which he took a position at variance on a single point with that which
he held when vindicating Jay's Treaty a few years before. In that treaty
Great Britain had stipulated that naval stores should be prohibited as
contraband of war, and Webster, in common with others, assumed with
reluctance that such prohibition was in accordance with the general law
of nations, although admitting that this was the most vulnerable article
of the treaty. Further investigation satisfied him of his error, and he
frankly avowed it in the later essay, where he says: "For the honor of
my country, and the essential interests of her commerce, I regret that
the administration, in the very commencement of the national government,
has consented to abandon ground which the nations of Europe had, for
more than a century, been struggling to obtain and to fortify. I have no
hesitation in declaring that no considerations of public danger can
justify a commercial nation in consenting to enlarge the field of
contraband; nor can there be an apology for the renewal of the clause in
the compact, by which our true interests and essential rights have been
surrendered." Following the maxim that "Free ships make free goods," he
establishes himself on the proposition that "neutrals have a better
right to trade than nations have to fight and plunder." Webster argued
strenuously in maintenance of rights which were in jeopardy, and the
disregard of which by Great Britain had much to do with the War of
1812-1814. He was writing at the beginning of Jefferson's first
administration, with all the distrust which the federalist party felt of
the President's foreign policy, but it cannot be said that his
examination of the subject is other than fair and impartial.
How bitterly he could write as a partisan is shown by the long "Address
to the President of the United States on the subject of his Address,"
published in 1802, and called out by Jefferson's inaugural, then six
months old. The principles laid down in that address, in the midst of
much fine rhetoric, had begun to be shown in practice, and Webster
employs argument and invective to lay bare the falseness of Jefferson's
professions. His longest and sharpest attack is upon the policy pursued
by the President in rewarding his followers with office,--a policy in
accord with the principles laid down in the inaugural. We are
accustomed nowadays to strong statements of the viciousness of the
spoils system, but no advocate of civil service reform has attacked the
full-grown system of party rewards with any more vigor than Webster
showed at the beginning of the system. "No, sir!" he exclaims
indignantly, "no individual or party has a _claim_ or _right_ to any
office whatever;" and he shows with exceeding clearness the tendency of
such a doctrine. In his subsequent occasional addresses one finds
frequently the note of alarm here struck. Webster was a fervid
Federalist, and the accession of the democratic party to power was a
shock to his confidence in the perpetuity of the Union from which he
never wholly recovered. When the election for President occurred in
1832, and it was clear that Jackson would be returned, Webster refused
to go to the polls; he sent away the carriage which came for him. Of
what use was it to vote? But the next year, when his son-in-law, Judge
Ellsworth, was a candidate for the governor's place, his faith revived a
little, and he found it possible to vote.
Webster's federalism had one significant expression in the preliminary
measures which led to the Hartford Convention. In January, 1814, Judge
Joseph Lyman, of Northampton, wrote to him at Amherst, where he was then
living, and proposed a meeting of the most discreet and intelligent
inhabitants of the county of Hampshire, for the purpose of a free and
dispassionate discussion respecting public concerns. A meeting was held
in Northampton, January 19th, at which Webster proposed that the several
towns in the vicinity should call a convention of delegates from the
legislatures of the Northern States, to agree upon and urge certain
amendments to the Constitution for the restoration of the equilibrium
between the North and the South. He and two others were appointed to
draft a circular letter, and this circular, written by Webster, was sent
out under Judge Lyman's name. In consequence of the appeal, a number of
towns sent petitions to the General Court of Massachusetts asking for
such a convention. It was not judged expedient to call one at that
session; but in October of the same year Harrison Gray Otis
reintroduced the measure, and Mr. Webster, then a member of the
legislature, supported it in a speech. The Hartford Convention thereupon
was called, and while Mr. Webster was not a member of it, he was so far
involved in its organization that he afterward published a sketch of
these earlier steps, though he did not there state in full his own
intimate connection with the movement.
Webster's federalism was something more than a partisan sentiment. In
following his political thought, it is easily perceived that his creed
of party was subordinate to his larger belief in the American Republic.
His writings upon public affairs, which are very considerable,
constantly reveal this dominant thought. The very vagaries--which, as we
have seen, and shall see again, rendered some of his ideas amusing and
vain-glorious--were but the disorderly and ill-regulated whims of a
sincere patriotism. Americanism in literature and language may become
fantastic, but in politics there is pretty sure to be room for the most
ardent love of country to expand itself without becoming a bubble, and
it is certain that Webster's political writings were marked by a
largeness of conception and a clear understanding of national lines
which redeem them from insignificance. They had their influence upon his
contemporaries, yet they were, after all, ephemeral. Had he concentrated
his powers upon political themes, it is not impossible that he should
have been a journalist, for instance, of influence and even celebrity.
But there was a weakness on this side. He did not bring to the
discussion of great public questions that weight of learning and breadth
of argument which will sustain political writings when the immediate
occasion has passed. Whether writing pamphlets or newspaper articles, he
was essentially a writer of the day, of importance in pressing home
arguments calling for immediate results, but lacking the art of
literature and the commanding thought of a statesman. He had a true
sentiment in politics, and he was able also to see practical issues
clearly; but his mind was analytical rather than constructive, and his
restlessness of life was indicative of a certain instability of temper
which kept him uneasily employed about many things rather than
steadfast and single-minded. It would be too much to say that he failed
as a political writer, and fell back on his philological and
school-master studies; yet it is very likely that, in the various
excursions which he made into politics and general literature, he
discovered by successive trials that there was one pursuit more than all
which really belonged to him, and the constancy with which he followed
it is in singular contrast with the multitudinous experiments which
seemed to occupy the period of his life between 1785 and 1802.
FOOTNOTES:
[10] Letter to L. Gaylord Clark, _Lippincott's Magazine_, April, 1870.
[11] _Constitutional History of the United States_, i. 63.
[12] The statement that King assisted Hamilton is made by H. C. Lodge,
in _The Life and Letters of George Cabot_, p. 84.