General Character of President Jackson's Administrations.--Speedy
Discord among the Parties which had united for his Elevation.--Mr.
Webster's Relations to the Administration.--Veto of the Bank.--Rise
and Progress of Nullification in South Carolina.--The Force Bill,
and the Reliance of General Jackson's Administration on Mr.
Webster's Aid.--His Speech in Defence of the Bill, and in
Opposition to Mr. Calhoun's Resolutions.--Mr. Madison's Letter on
Secession.--The Removal of the Deposits.--Motives for that
Measure.--The Resolution of the Senate disapproving it.--The
President's Protest.--Mr. Webster's Speech on the Subject of the
Protest.--Opinions of Chancellor Kent and Mr. Tazewell.--The
Expunging Resolution.--Mr. Webster's Protest against it.--Mr.
Van Buren's Election.--The Financial Crisis and the Extra Session
of Congress.--The Government Plan of Finance supported by Mr.
Calhoun and opposed by Mr. Webster.--Personalities.--Mr. Webster's
Visit to Europe and distinguished Reception.--The Presidential
Canvass of 1840.--Election of General Harrison.
It would require a volume of ample dimensions to relate the history of
Mr. Webster's Senatorial career from this time till the accession of
General Harrison to the Presidency, in 1841. In this interval the
government was administered for two successive terms by General Jackson,
and for a single term by Mr. Van Buren. It was a period filled with
incidents of great importance in various departments of the government,
often of a startling character at the time, and not less frequently
exerting a permanent influence on the condition of the country. It may
be stated as the general characteristic of the political tendencies of
this period, that there was a decided weakening of respect for
constitutional restraint. Vague ideas of executive discretion prevailed
on the one hand in the interpretation of the Constitution, and of
popular sovereignty on the other, as represented by a President elevated
to office by overwhelming majorities of the people. The expulsion of the
Indian tribes from the Southern States, in violation of the faith of
treaties and in open disregard of the opinion of the Supreme Court of
the United States as to their obligation; the claim of a right on the
part of a State to nullify an act of the general government; the
violation of the charter of the bank, and the Presidential veto of the
act of Congress rechartering it; the deposit of the public money in the
selected State banks with a view to its safe keeping and for the greater
encouragement of trade by the loan of the public funds; the explosion
of this system, and the adoption of one directly opposed to it, which
rejected wholly the aid of the banks and denied the right of the
government to employ the public funds for any but fiscal purposes; the
executive menaces of war against France; the unsuccessful attempt of Mr.
Van Buren's administration to carry on the government upon General
Jackson's system; the panic of 1837, succeeded by the general uprising
of the country and the universal demand for a change of men and
measures,--these are the leading incidents in the chronicle of the
period in question. Most of the events referred to are discussed in the
following volumes. On some of them Mr. Webster put forth all his power.
The questions pertaining to the construction of the Constitution, to the
bank, to the veto power, to the currency, to the constitutionality of
the tariff, to the right of removal from office, and to the finances,
were discussed in almost every conceivable form, and with every variety
of argument and illustration.
It has already been observed, that General Jackson was brought into
power by a somewhat ill-compacted alliance between his original friends
and a portion of the friends of the other candidates of 1824. As far as
Mr. Calhoun and his followers were concerned, the cordiality of the
union was gone before the inauguration of the new President. There was
not only on the list of the cabinet to be appointed no adequate
representative of the Vice-President, but his rival candidate for the
succession (Mr. Van Buren) was placed at the head of the administration.
There is reason to suppose that General Jackson, who, though his policy
tended greatly to impair the strength of the Union, was in feeling a
warm Unionist, witnessed with no dissatisfaction the result of the great
constitutional debate and its influence upon the country.
But the effect of this debate on the friendly relations of Mr.
Webster with the administration was in some degree neutralized by the
incidents of the second session of the Twenty-first Congress. Mr. Van
Buren had retreated before the embarrassments of the position in which
he found himself in the Department of State, and had accepted the
mission to England. The instructions which he had given to Mr.
McLane in 1829, in reference to the adjustment of the question
relative to the colonial trade, were deemed highly objectionable by a
majority of the Senate, as bringing the relations of our domestic
parties to the notice of a foreign government, and founding upon a
change of administration an argument for the concession of what was
deemed and called "a boon" by the British government. In order to
mark the spirit of these instructions with the disapprobation of the
Senate, the nomination of Mr. Van Buren as Minister to England was
negatived by a majority of that body. While the subject was under
discussion, Mr. Clay, Mr. Webster, and Mr. Calhoun took the same view
of this delicate question. It will be found treated in the speech of Mr.
Webster of the 24th of January, 1832, with all the gravity, temper, and
moderation which its importance demanded.
In the Twenty-second Congress (the second of General Jackson's
administration) the bank question became prominent. General Jackson had
in his first message called the attention of Congress to the subject of
the bank. No doubt of its constitutionality was then intimated by him.
In the course of a year or two an attempt was made, on the part of the
executive, to control the appointment of the officers of one of the
Eastern branches. This attempt was resisted by the bank, and from that
time forward a state of warfare, at first partially disguised, but
finally open and flagrant, existed between the government and the
directors of the institution. In the first session of the Twenty-second
Congress (1831-32), a bill was introduced by Mr. Dallas, and passed the
two houses, to renew the charter of the bank. This measure was supported
by Mr. Webster, on the ground of the importance of a national bank to
the fiscal operations of the government, and to the currency, exchange,
and general business of the country. No specific complaints of
mismanagement had then been made, nor were any abuses alleged to exist.
The bank was, almost without exception, popular at that time with the
business interests of the country, and particularly at the South and
West. Its credit in England was solid; its bills and drafts on London
took the place of specie for remittances to India and China. Its
convenience and usefulness were recognized in the report of the
Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. McLane), at the same time that its
constitutionality was questioned and its existence threatened by the
President. So completely, however, was the policy of General Jackson's
administration the impulse of his own feelings and individual
impressions, and so imperfectly had these been disclosed on the present
occasion, that the fate of the bill for rechartering the bank was a
matter of uncertainty on the part both of adherents and opponents. Many
persons on both sides of the two houses were taken by surprise by the
veto. When the same question was to be decided by General Washington, he
took the opinion in writing of every member of the Cabinet.
But events of a different complexion soon occurred, and gave a new
direction to the thoughts of men throughout the country. The opposition
of South Carolina to the protective policy had been pushed to a point of
excitement at which it was beyond the control of party leaders.
Although, as we have seen, that policy had in 1816 been established by
the aid of distinguished statesmen of South Carolina, who saw in the
success of American cotton manufactures a new market for the staple of
the South, in which it would take the place of the cotton of India, the
protective policy at a later period had come to be generally considered
unconstitutional at the South. A change of opinion somewhat similar had
taken place in New England, which had been originally opposed to this
policy, as adverse to the commercial and navigating interests.
Experience gradually showed that such was not the case. The enactment of
the law of 1824 was considered as establishing the general principle of
protection as the policy of the country. It was known to be the policy
of the great central States. The capital of the North was to some extent
forced into new channels. Some branches of manufactures flourished, as
skill was acquired and improvements in machinery made. The coarse cotton
fabrics which had enjoyed the protection of the _minimum_ duty
prospered, manufacturing villages grew up, the price of the fabric fell,
and as competition increased the tariff did little more than protect the
domestic manufacturer from fraudulent invoices and the fluctuation of
foreign markets. Thus all parties were benefited, not excepting the
South, which gained a new customer for her staple. These changes in the
condition of things led Mr. Webster, as we have remarked in a former
chapter, to modify his course on the tariff question.
Unfortunately, no manufactures had been established at the South. The
vast quantities of new and fertile land opened in the west of Georgia,
in Alabama, and Mississippi, injured the value of the old and partly
exhausted lands of the Atlantic States. Labor was drawn off to found
plantations in the new States, and the injurious consequences were
ascribed to the tariff. Considerations of a political nature had
entirely changed the tolerant feeling which, up to a certain period, had
been shown by one class of Southern politicians toward the protective
policy. With the exception of Louisiana, and one or two votes in
Virginia, the whole South was united against the tariff. South Carolina
had suffered most by the inability of her worn lands to sustain the
competition with the lands of the Yazoo and the Red River, and to her
the most active opposition, under the lead of Mr. Calhoun, was confined.
The modern doctrine of nullification was broached by her accomplished
statesmen, and an unsuccessful attempt made to deduce it from the
Virginia resolutions of 1798. Mr. Madison, in a letter addressed to the
writer of these pages,[18] in August, 1830, firmly resisted this
attempt; and, as a theory, the whole doctrine of nullification was
overthrown by Mr. Webster, in his speech of the 26th of January, 1830.
But public sentiment had gone too far in South Carolina to be checked;
party leaders were too deeply committed to retreat; and at the close of
1832 the ordinance of nullification was adopted by a State convention.
This decisive act roused the hero of New Orleans from the vigilant
repose with which he had watched the coming storm. Confidential orders
to hold themselves in readiness for active service were sent in every
direction to the officers of the army and the navy. Prudent and resolute
men were quietly stationed at the proper posts. Arms and munitions in
abundance were held in readiness, and a chain of expresses in advance of
the mail was established from the Capitol to Charleston. These
preparations made, the Presidential proclamation of the 11th of
December, 1832, was issued. It was written by Mr. Edward Livingston,
then Secretary of State, from notes furnished by General Jackson
himself; but there is not an idea of importance in it which may not be
found in Mr. Webster's speech on Foot's resolution.
The proclamation of the President was met by the counter-proclamation of
Governor Hayne; and the State of South Carolina proceeded to pass laws
for carrying the ordinance of nullification into effect, and for putting
the State into a condition to carry on war with the general government.
In this posture of affairs the President of the United States laid the
matter before Congress, in his message of the 16th of January, 1833, and
the bill "further to provide for the collection of duties on imports"
was introduced into the Senate, in pursuance of his recommendations. Mr.
Calhoun was at this time a member of that body, having been chosen to
succeed Governor Hayne, and having of course resigned the office of
Vice-President. Thus called, for the first time, to sustain in person
before the Senate and the country the policy of nullification, which had
been adopted by South Carolina mainly under his influence, and which was
now threatening the Union, it hardly need be said that he exerted all
his ability, and put forth all his resources, in defence of the doctrine
which had brought his State to the verge of revolution. It is but
justice to add, that he met the occasion with equal courage and vigor.
The bill "to make further provision for the collection of the revenue,"
or "Force Bill," as it was called, was reported by Mr. Wilkins from the
Committee on the Judiciary on the 21st of January, and on the following
day Mr. Calhoun moved a series of resolutions, affirming the right of a
State to annul, as far as her citizens are concerned, any act of
Congress which she may deem oppressive and unconstitutional. On the 15th
and 16th of February, he spoke at length in opposition to the bill, and
in development and support of his resolutions. On this occasion the
doctrine of nullification was sustained by him with far greater ability
than it had been by General Hayne, and in a speech which we believe is
regarded as Mr. Calhoun's most powerful effort. In closing his speech,
Mr. Calhoun challenged the opponents of his doctrines to disprove them,
and warned them, in the concluding sentence, that the principles they
might advance would be subjected to the revision of posterity.[19]
Mr. Webster, before Mr. Calhoun had resumed his seat, or he had risen
from his own, accepted the challenge, and commenced his reply. He began
to speak as he was rising, and continued to address the Senate with
great force and effect, for about two hours. The Senate then took a
recess, and after it came together Mr. Webster spoke again, from five
o'clock till eight in the evening. The speech was more purely a
constitutional argument than that of the 26th of January, 1830. It was
mainly devoted to an examination of Mr. Calhoun's resolutions; to a
review of the adoption and ratification of the Constitution of the
United States, by way of elucidating the question whether the system
provided by the Constitution is a government of the people or a compact
between the States; and to a discussion of the constitutionality of the
tariff. It was less various and discursive in its matter than the speech
on Foot's resolution, but more condensed and systematic. Inferior,
perhaps, in interest for a mixed audience, from the absence of personal
allusions, which at all times give the greatest piquancy to debate, a
severe judgment might pronounce it a finer piece of parliamentary logic.
Nor must it be inferred from this description that it was destitute of
present interest. The Senate-chamber was thronged to its utmost
capacity, both before and after the recess, although the streets of
Washington, owing to the state of the weather at the time, were nearly
impassable.
The opinion entertained of this speech by the individual who, of all the
people of America, was the best qualified to estimate its value, may be
seen from the following letter of Mr. Madison, which has never before
been published.
"_Montpellier, March 15th, 1833._
"MY DEAR SIR:--I return my thanks for the copy of your late very
powerful speech in the Senate of the United States. It crushes
'nullification,' and must hasten an abandonment of 'secession.' But
this dodges the blow, by confounding the claim to secede at will
with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former
answers itself, being a violation without cause of a faith solemnly
pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which
there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless,
with the countenance received from certain quarters, is giving it a
popular currency here, which may influence the approaching elections
both for Congress and for the State legislature. It has gained some
advantage also by mixing itself with the question, whether the
Constitution of the United States was formed by the people or by the
States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partisans.
"It is fortunate when disputed theories can be decided by
undisputed facts, and here the undisputed fact is, that the
Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the
several States who were parties to it, and therefore made by the
States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the
same authority and by the same process, have converted the
confederacy into a mere league or treaty, or continued it with
enlarged or abridged powers; or have embodied the people of their
respective States into one people, nation, or sovereignty; or, as
they did, by a mixed form, make them one people, nation, or
sovereignty for certain purposes, and not so for others.
"The Constitution of the United States, being established by a
competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several
States who were parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the
Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a
government into the usual legislative, executive, and judiciary
departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the
parties to the Constitution. It makes the government like other
governments to operate directly on the people; places at its command
the needful physical means of executing its powers; and finally
proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of
it, over the constitutions and laws of the States, the powers of the
government being exercised, as in other elective and responsible
governments, under the control of its constituents, the people and
the legislatures of the States, and subject to the revolutionary
rights of the people, in extreme cases.
"Such is the Constitution of the United States _de jure_ and _de
facto_, and the name, whatever it be, that may be given to it can
make it nothing more or less than what it is.
"Pardon this hasty effusion, which, whether precisely according or
not with your ideas, presents, I am aware, none that will be new to
you.
"With great esteem and cordial salutations,
"JAMES MADISON."
To "MR. WEBSTER."
It may be observed, in reference to the closing remark in the above
important letter, that the view which it presents of the nature of the
government established by the Constitution is precisely that taken by
Mr. Webster in the various speeches in which the subject is discussed by
him.
The President of the United States felt the importance of Mr. Webster's
aid in the great constitutional struggle of the session. There were
men of great ability enlisted in support of his administration,
Messrs Forsyth, Grundy, Dallas, Rives, and others, but no one competent
to assume the post of antagonist to the great Southern leader. The
general political position of Mr. Webster made it in no degree his duty
to sustain the administration in any party measure, but the reverse.
But his whole course as a public man, and all his principles,
forbade him to act from party motives in a great crisis of the
country's fortunes. The administration was now engaged in a fearful
struggle for the preservation of the Union, and the integrity of the
Constitution. The doctrines of the proclamation were the doctrines of
his speech on Foot's resolution almost to the words. He would have been
unjust to his most cherished principles and his views of public duty
had he not come to the rescue, not of the administration, but of the
country, in this hour of her peril. His aid was personally solicited
in the great debate on the "Force Bill" by a member of the Cabinet, but
it was not granted till the bill had undergone important amendments
suggested by him, when it was given cordially, without stint and
without condition.[20]
In the recess of Congress in the year 1833, Mr. Webster made a short
journey to the Middle States and the West. He was everywhere the object
of the most distinguished and respectful attentions. Public receptions
took place at Buffalo and Pittsburg, where, under the auspices of
committees of the highest respectability, he addressed immense
assemblages convened without distinction of party. Invitations to
similar meetings reached him from many quarters, which he was obliged by
want of leisure to decline.
The friendly relations into which Mr. Webster had been drawn with the
President, and the enthusiastic welcome given to the President on his
tour to the East, in the summer of 1833, awakened jealousy in certain
quarters. It was believed at the time, by well-informed persons, that
among the motives which actuated some persons in General Jackson's
confidence, in fanning his hostility to the Bank of the United States,
was that of bringing forward a question of great interest both to the
public and the President, on which he would be sure to encounter Mr.
Webster's opposition.
Such a subject was the removal of the deposits of the public moneys from
the Bank of the United States, a measure productive of more immediate
distress to the community and a larger train of evil consequences than
perhaps any similar measure in our political history. It was finally
determined upon while the President was on his Northern tour, in the
summer of 1833, receiving in every part of New England those warm
demonstrations of respect which his patriotic course in the great
nullification struggle had inspired. It is proper to state, that up to
this period, in the judgment of more than one committee of Congress
appointed to investigate its affairs, in the opinion of both houses of
Congress, who in 1832 had passed a bill to renew the charter, and of the
House of Representatives, which had resolved that the deposits were safe
in its custody, the affairs of the bank had been conducted with
prudence, integrity, and remarkable skill. It was not the least evil
consequence of the warfare waged upon the bank, that it was finally
drawn into a position (though not till its Congressional charter
expired, and it accepted very unwisely a charter as a State institution)
in which, in its desperate struggle to sustain itself, it finally
forfeited the confidence of its friends and the public, and made a
deplorable and shameful shipwreck at once of its interests and honor,
involving hundreds, at home and abroad, in its own deserved ruin.
The second administration of General Jackson, which commenced in March,
1833, was principally employed in carrying on this war against the bank,
and in the effort to build up the league of the associated banks into an
efficient fiscal agent of the government. The dangerous crisis of
affairs in South Carolina had, for the time, passed. The passage of the
"Force Bill" had vindicated the authority of the Constitution as the
supreme law of the land, and had armed the President with the needed
powers to maintain it. On the other hand, the Compromise Bill of Mr.
Clay, providing for the gradual reduction of all duties to one uniform
rate of twenty per cent., was accepted by Mr. Calhoun and his friends as
a practical concession, and furnished them the opportunity of making
what they deemed a not discreditable retreat from the attitude of
military resistance in which they had placed the State. Regarding this
bill in the light of a concession to unconstitutional menace, as tending
to the eventual prostration of all the interests which had grown up
under the system so long pursued by the government, Mr. Webster felt
himself compelled to withhold from it his support. He rejoiced, however,
in the concurrence of events which had averted the dread appeal to arms
that seemed at one time unavoidable.
It would occupy an unreasonable space to dwell upon every public measure
before Congress at this session; but there is one which cannot with
propriety be passed over, as it drew forth from Mr. Webster an argument
not inferior to his speech on the "Force Bill." A resolution, originally
moved by Mr. Clay, expressing disapprobation of the removal of the
deposits from the bank, was, after material amendments, adopted by the
Senate. This resolution led to a formal protest from the President,
communicated to the Senate on the 15th of April, 1834. Looking upon the
resolution referred to as one of expediency, it is probable that Mr.
Webster did not warmly favor, though, with Mr. Calhoun, he concurred in,
its passage. The protest of the President, however, placed the subject
on new ground. Mr. Webster considered it as an encroachment on the
constitutional rights of the Senate, and as a denial to that body of the
freedom of action which the executive claimed so earnestly for itself.
He accordingly addressed the Senate on the 7th of May, in a speech of
the highest ability, in which the doctrines of the protest were
subjected to the severest scrutiny, and the constitutional rights and
duties of the Senate asserted with a force and spirit worthy of the
important position occupied by that body in the frame of the government.
This speech will be ever memorable for that sublime passage on the
extent of the power of England, which will be quoted with admiration
wherever our language is spoken and while England retains her place in
the family of nations.
This speech was received throughout the country with the highest favor;
by the most distinguished jurists and statesmen as well as by the mass
of the people. Chancellor Kent's language of praise passes the limits of
moderation. "You never," said he, "equalled this effort. It surpasses
every thing in logic, in simplicity and beauty and energy of diction, in
clearness, in rebuke, in sarcasm, in patriotic and glowing feeling, in
just and profound constitutional views, in critical severity, and
matchless strength. It is worth millions to our liberties." Not less
decided was the approbation of a gentleman of great sagacity and
experience as a statesman, Governor Tazewell of Virginia. In writing to
Mr. Tyler he uses this language: "Tell Webster from me that I have read
his speech in the National Intelligencer with more pleasure than any I
have lately seen. If the approbation of one who has not been used to
coincide with him in opinion can be grateful to him, he has mine _in
extenso_. I agree with him perfectly, and thank him cordially for his
many excellent illustrations of what I always thought. If it is
published in a pamphlet form, beg him to send me one. I will have it
bound in good Russia leather, and leave it as a special legacy to my
children."[21]
At the same session of Congress, Mr. Webster spoke frequently on the
presentation of memorials, which were poured in upon him from every part
of the country, in reference to the existing distress. These speeches
were of necessity made, in almost every case, with little or no
preparation, but many of them contain expositions of the operation of
the financial experiment instituted by General Jackson, which will
retain a permanent value in our political history. Some of them are
marked by bursts of the highest eloquence. The entire subject of the
currency was also treated with great ability by Mr. Webster, in a report
made at this session of Congress from the committee of the Senate on
finance, of which he was chairman. Few documents more skilfully digested
or powerfully reasoned have proceeded from his pen.
The same topics substantially occupied the attention of the Senate at
the Twenty-fourth as at the Twenty-third Congress. The principal
subjects discussed pertained to the currency. The specie circular and
the distribution of the surplus revenue were among the prominent
measures. A motion made in the Senate to expunge from its records
the resolution of March, 1834, by which the Senate expressed its
disapprobation of the removal of the deposits, drew forth from Mr.
Webster, on behalf of himself and his colleague, a protest against
that measure, of singular earnestness and power. Committed to writing,
and read with unusual solemnity, it produced upon the Senate an effect
which is still remembered and spoken of. Every word in it is weighed
as in a balance.
The administration of General Jackson was drawing to a close; Mr. Van
Buren had been chosen to succeed him in November, 1836. In the month of
February following, upon an invitation from a large committee of
merchants, professional men, and citizens generally of New York, given
some months previous, Mr. Webster attended one of those great public
meetings which he has been so often called to address. His speech on
this occasion, delivered in Niblo's Saloon on the 15th of March, 1837,
is one of the most important in this collection. It embraced a
comprehensive review of the entire course of General Jackson's policy,
and closed with a prediction of the impending catastrophe. After the
adjournment of Congress, Mr. Webster made a hasty tour to the West, in
the course of which he addressed large public meetings at Wheeling in
Virginia, at Madison in Indiana, and at other places. The coincidence of
passing events with all his anticipations of the certain effects of the
administration policy gave peculiar force to these addresses. It is to
be regretted that these speeches appear from inadequate reports; of some
of the speeches made by him on this tour, no notes were taken.
Such was the financial embarrassment induced by the explosion of the
system of the late administration, that President Van Buren's first
official act was a proclamation for an extra session of Congress, to be
held in September, 1837. At this session the new government plan of
finance, usually called "the Sub-treasury system," was brought forward.
It was the opinion of Mr. Webster, that the rigid enforcement by the
government of a system of specie payments in all its public receipts and
expenditures was an actual impossibility, in the present state of things
in this country and the other commercial countries of the civilized
world. The attempt to reject altogether the aid of convertible paper, of
bills of exchange, of drafts, and other substitutes for the use and
transportation of the precious metals, must fail in practice in a
commercial country, where the great mass of the business affairs of the
community are transacted with their aid. If the attempt could be forced
through, it would be like an attempt on the part of the government to
make use of the ancient modes of travel and conveyance, while every
citizen in his private affairs enjoyed the benefit of steam navigation
and railways. Mr. Webster accordingly opposed the sub-treasury project
from its inception; and it failed to become a law at the extra session
of Congress in 1837.
Somewhat to the surprise of the country generally, it received the
support of Mr. Calhoun. In common with most of his friends, he had
sustained the Bank of the United States, and denounced the financial
policy of General Jackson at every stage. But at the extra session of
Congress he expressed opinions favorable to the sub-treasury, and
followed them up in a remarkable letter to his constituents, published
after the adjournment. At the winter session of 1837-38 he defended the
government plan in an elaborate speech. This speech drew from Mr.
Webster a very able reply. He had, earlier in the session, delivered his
sentiments in opposition to the government measure, and Mr. Calhoun, in
his speech of the 15th of February, 1838, had animadverted upon them,
and represented the sub-treasury system as little more than an attempt
to carry out the joint resolution of the 30th of April, 1816, which, as
we have seen above, was introduced by Mr. Webster, and was the immediate
means of restoring specie payments after the war.
This reference, as well as the whole tenor of Mr. Calhoun's remarks,
called upon Mr. Webster for a rejoinder, which was made by him on the
12th of March. It is the most elaborate and effective of Mr. Webster's
speeches on the subject of the currency.[22] The constitutional right of
the general government to employ a convertible paper in its fiscal
transactions, and to make use of banks in the custody and transmission
of its funds, is argued in this speech with much ability, from the
necessity of the case, from the contemporaneous expositions of the
Constitution, from the practice of the government under every
administration, from the expressed views and opinions of every President
of the United States, including General Jackson, and from the
often-declared opinions of all the leading statesmen of the country, not
excepting Mr. Calhoun himself, whose course in this respect was reviewed
by Mr. Webster somewhat at length, and in such a way as unavoidably to
suggest the idea of inconsistency, although no such charge was made.
To some portions of this speech Mr. Calhoun replied a few weeks
afterwards, and sought to ward off the comments upon his own course in
reference to this class of questions, by some severe strictures on that
of Mr. Webster. This drew from him a prompt and spirited rejoinder. The
following passage may be extracted as a specimen:--
"But, Sir, before attempting that, he [Mr. Calhoun] has something
else to say. He had prepared, it seems, to draw comparisons himself.
He had intended to say something, if time had allowed, upon our
respective opinions and conduct in regard to the war. If time had
allowed! Sir, time does allow, time must allow. A general remark of
that kind ought not to be, cannot be, left to produce its effect,
when that effect is obviously intended to be unfavorable. Why did
the gentleman allude to my votes or my opinions respecting the war
at all, unless he had something to say? Does he wish to leave an
undefined impression that something was done, or something said, by
me, not now capable of defence or justification? something not
reconcilable with true patriotism? He means that, or nothing. And
now, Sir, let him bring the matter forth; let him take the
responsibility of the accusation; let him state his facts. I am here
to answer; I am here, this day, to answer. Now is the time, and now
the hour. I think we read, Sir, that one of the good spirits would
not bring against the Arch-enemy of mankind a railing accusation;
and what is railing but general reproach, an imputation without
fact, time, or circumstance? Sir, I call for particulars. The
gentleman knows my whole conduct well; indeed, the journals show it
all, from the moment I came into Congress till the peace. If I have
done, then, Sir, any thing unpatriotic, any thing which, as far as
love to country goes, will not bear comparison with his or any man's
conduct, let it now be stated. Give me the fact, the time, the
manner. He speaks of the war; that which we call the late war,
though it is now twenty-five years since it terminated. He would
leave an impression that I opposed it. How? I was not in Congress
when war was declared, nor in public life anywhere. I was pursuing
my profession, keeping company with judges and jurors, and
plaintiffs and defendants. If I had been in Congress, and had
enjoyed the benefit of hearing the honorable gentleman's speeches,
for aught I can say, I might have concurred with him. But I was not
in public life. I never had been for a single hour; and was in no
situation, therefore, to oppose or to support the declaration of
war. I am speaking to the fact, Sir; and if the gentleman has any
fact, let us know it.
"Well, Sir, I came into Congress during the war. I found it waged,
and raging. And what did I do here to oppose it? Look to the
journals. Let the honorable gentleman tax his memory. Bring up any
thing, if there be any thing to bring up, not showing error of
opinion, but showing want of loyalty or fidelity to the country. I
did not agree to all that was proposed, nor did the honorable
member. I did not approve of every measure, nor did he. The war had
been preceded by the restrictive system and the embargo. As a
private individual, I certainly did not think well of these
measures. It appeared to me that the embargo annoyed ourselves as
much as our enemies, while it destroyed the business and cramped the
spirits of the people. In this opinion I may have been right or
wrong, but the gentleman was himself of the same opinion. He told us
the other day, as a proof of his independence of party on great
questions, that he differed with his friends on the subject of the
embargo. He was decidedly and unalterably opposed to it. It
furnishes in his judgment, therefore, no imputation either on my
patriotism, or on the soundness of my political opinions, that I was
opposed to it also. I mean opposed in opinion; for I was not in
Congress, and had nothing to do with the act creating the embargo.
And as to opposition to measures for carrying on the war, after I
came into Congress, I again say, let the gentleman specify; let him
lay his finger on any thing calling for an answer, and he shall have
an answer.
"Mr. President, you were yourself in the House during a considerable
part of this time. The honorable gentleman may make a witness of
you. He may make a witness of any body else. He may be his own
witness. Give us but some fact, some charge, something capable in
itself either of being proved or disproved. Prove any thing, state
any thing, not consistent with honorable and patriotic conduct, and
I am ready to answer it. Sir, I am glad this subject has been
alluded to in a manner which justifies me in taking public notice of
it; because I am well aware that, for ten years past, infinite pains
has been taken to find something, in the range of these topics,
which might create prejudice against me in the country. The journals
have all been pored over, and the reports ransacked, and scraps of
paragraphs and half-sentences have been collected, fraudulently put
together, and then made to flare out as if there had been some
discovery. But all this failed. The next resort was to supposed
correspondence. My letters were sought for, to learn if, in the
confidence of private friendship, I had ever said any thing which an
enemy could make use of. With this view, the vicinity of my former
residence has been searched, as with a lighted candle. New Hampshire
has been explored from the mouth of the Merrimack to the White
Hills. In one instance, a gentleman had left the State, gone five
hundred miles off, and died. His papers were examined; a letter was
found, and, I have understood, it was brought to Washington; a
conclave was held to consider it, and the result was, that, if there
was nothing else against Mr. Webster, the matter had better be let
alone. Sir, I hope to make every body of that opinion who brings
against me a charge of want of patriotism. Errors of opinion can be
found, doubtless, on many subjects; but as conduct flows from the
feelings which animate the heart, I know that no act of my life has
had its origin in the want of ardent love of country."
This is the only occasion during the long political lives of these
distinguished statesmen, begun nearly at the same time, and continued
through a Congressional career which brought them of necessity much in
contact with each other, in which there was any approach to personality
in their keen encounters. In fact, of all the highly eminent public men
of the day, they are the individuals who have made the least use of the
favorite weapon of ordinary politicians, personality toward opponents.
On the decease of Mr. Calhoun at Washington, in the spring of 1850,
their uninterrupted friendly relations were alluded to by Mr. Webster in
cordial and affecting terms. He regarded Mr. Calhoun as decidedly the
ablest of the public men to whom he had been opposed in the course of
his political life.
These kindly feelings on Mr. Webster's part were fully reciprocated by
Mr. Calhoun. He is known to have declared on his death-bed, that, of all
the public men of the day, there was no one whose political course had
been more strongly marked by a strict regard to truth and honor than Mr.
Webster's.
In the spring of 1839, Mr. Webster crossed the Atlantic for the first
time in his life, making a hasty tour through England, Scotland, and
France. His attention was particularly drawn to the agriculture of
England and Scotland; to the great subjects of currency and exchange; to
the condition of the laboring classes; and to the practical effect on
the politics of Europe of the system of the Continental alliance. No
traveller from this country has probably ever been received with equal
attention in the highest quarters in England. Courtesies usually paid
only to ambassadors and foreign ministers were extended to him. His
table was covered with invitations to the seats of the nobility and
gentry; and his company was eagerly sought at the public entertainments
which took place while he was in the country. Among the distinguished
individuals with whom he contracted intimate relations of friendship,
the late Lord Ashburton may be particularly mentioned. A mutual regard
of more than usual warmth arose between them. This circumstance was well
understood in the higher circles of English society, and when, two years
later, a change of administration in both countries brought the parties
to which they were respectively attached into power, the friendly
relations well known to exist between them were no doubt among the
motives which led to the appointment of Lord Ashburton as special
minister to the United States.
Toward that great political change which was consummated in 1840, by
which General Harrison was raised to the Presidency, no individual
probably in the country had contributed more largely than Mr. Webster;
and this by powerful appeals to the reason of the people. His speeches
had been for years a public armory, from which weapons both of attack
and defence were furnished to his political friends throughout the
Union. The financial policy of the two preceding administrations was the
chief cause of the general discontent which prevailed; and it is doing
no injustice to the other eminent leaders of opposition in the several
States to say, that by none of them had the vices of this system from
the first been so laboriously and effectively exposed as by Mr. Webster.
During the canvass of 1840, the most strenuous ever witnessed in the
United States, he gave himself up for months to what may literally be
called the arduous labor of the field. These volumes exhibit the proof,
that not only in Massachusetts, but in distant places, from Albany to
Richmond, his voice of encouragement and exhortation was heard.
The event corresponded to the effort, and General Harrison was
triumphantly elected.
FOOTNOTES
[18] North American Review, Vol. XXXI. p. 537.
[19] This passage does not appear in the report preserved in the volume
containing his Select Speeches.
[20] It is not wholly unworthy of remark in this place, as illustrating
the dependence on Mr. Webster's aid which was felt at the White
House, that, on the day of his reply to Mr. Calhoun, the
President's carriage was sent to Mr. Webster's lodgings, as was
supposed with a message borne by the President's private
secretary. Happening to be still at the door when Mr. Webster
was about to go to the Capitol, it conveyed him to the
Senate-chamber.
[21] March's Reminiscences of Congress, pp. 291, 292.
[22] Not long after the publication of this speech, the present Lord
Overstone, then Mr. S. Jones Lloyd, one of the highest
authorities upon financial subjects in England, was examined
upon the subject of banks and currency before a committee of the
House of Commons. He produced a copy of the speech of Mr.
Webster before the committee, and pronounced it one of the
ablest and most satisfactory discussions of these subjects which
he had seen. In writing afterwards to Mr. Webster, he spoke of
him as a master who had instructed him on these subjects.