STACK 
 ANNEX 
 
 5 
 
 081 
 
 125 
 
 WttMMWM*tt0MHWm)MttttM^ 
 
 j^KX)^rt*mW<WH*8^<tmia^ : 
 
 ^ihiifflffttmt'^ 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 MMV, PF CALIF. L1BBARY. LOS ANOKI-E9
 
 Series of 3nglisf) Classics 
 
 WEBSTER 
 
 REPLY TO HAYNE 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 CORNELIUS BEACH BRADLEY 
 
 PROFESSOR OF RHETORIC IN THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 ALLYN AND BACON 
 
 Boston ant) Chicago
 
 COPYRIGHT, 1894, 
 BY CORNELIUS B. BRADLEY. 
 
 TYPOGBAPHY BY C. J. PETERS fc SON, BOSTON. 
 
 PBESSWOBK BY BERWICK & SMITH.
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 REPLY TO HAYNE; IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, 
 
 JANUARY 26, 1830. 
 
 MR. PRESIDENT, When the mariner has been tossed 
 for many days in thick weather, and on an unknown sea, 
 he naturally avails himself of the first pause in the storm, 
 the earliest glance of the sun, to take his latitude, and 
 ascertain how far the elements have driven him from his 5 
 true course. Let us imitate this prudence, and before 
 we float farther on the waves of this debate, refer to the 
 point from which we departed, that we may at least 
 be able to conjecture where we now are. I ask for the 
 reading of the resolution before the Senate. 10 
 
 The Secretary read the resolution, as follows : 
 
 " Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands be instructed 
 to inquire and report the quantity of public lands remaining 
 unsold within each State and Territory, and whether it be 
 expedient to limit for a certain period the sales of the pub- 15 
 lie lands to such lands only as have heretofore been offered 
 for sale, and are now subject to entry at the minimum price. 
 And, also, whether the office of Surveyor-General, and some 
 of the land offices, may not be abolished without detriment 
 to the public interest ; or whether it be expedient to adopt 20 
 measures to hasten the sales and extend more rapidly the 
 surveys of the public lands." 
 
 We have thus heard, Sir, what the resolution is which 
 is actually before us for consideration ; and it will readily 
 occur to every one that it is almost the only subject 25 
 
 185
 
 186 Webster. 
 
 about which something has not been said in the speech, 
 running through two days, by which the Senate has 
 been entertained by the gentleman from South Carolina. 
 Every topic in the wide range of our public affairs, 
 5 whether past or present everything, general or local, 
 whether belonging to national politics or party politics 
 seems to have attracted more or less of the honorable 
 member's attention, save only the resolution before the 
 Senate. He has spoken of everything but the public 
 
 10 lands ; they have escaped his notice. To that subject, 
 in all his excursions, he has not paid even the cold 
 respect of a passing glance. 
 
 When this debate, Sir, was to be resumed on Thurs- 
 day morning, it so happened that it would have been 
 
 15 convenient for me to be elsewhere. The honorable mem- 
 ber, however, did not incline to put off the discussion 
 to another day. He had a shot, he said, to return, and 
 he wished to discharge it. That shot, Sir, which he thus 
 kindly informed us was coming, that we might stand out 
 
 20 of the way, or prepare ourselves to fall by it and die 
 with decency, has now been received. Under all advan- 
 tages, and with expectation awakened by the tone which 
 preceded it, it has been discharged, and has spent its 
 force. It may become me to say no more of its effect, 
 
 25 than that, if nobody is found, after all, either killed or 
 wounded, it is not the first time in the history of human 
 affairs that the vigor and success of the war have not 
 quite come up to the lofty and sounding phrase of the 
 manifesto. 
 
 so The gentleman, Sir, in declining to postpone the de- 
 bate, told the Senate, with the emphasis of his hand 
 upon his heart, that there was something rankling here, 
 which he wished to relieve. 
 
 [Mr. Hayne rose, and disclaimed having used the word rank- 
 35 ling.]
 
 Reply to Rayne. 187 
 
 It -would not, Mr. President, be safe for the honorable 
 member to appeal to those around him upon the ques- 
 tion whether he did, in fact, make use of that word. 
 But he may have been unconscious of it. At any rate, 
 it is enough that he disclaims it. But still, with or with- 5 
 out the use of that particular word, he had yet something 
 here, he said, of which he wished to rid himself by an 
 immediate reply. In this respect, Sir, I have a great 
 advantage over the honorable gentleman. There is noth- 
 ing here, Sir, which gives me the slightest uneasiness ; 10 
 neither fear, nor anger, nor that which is sometimes more 
 troublesome than either, the consciousness of having been 
 in the wrong. There is nothing either originating here, 
 or now received here by the gentleman's shot. Nothing 
 originating here, for I had not the slightest feeling of 15 
 unkindness towards the honorable member. Some pas- 
 sages, it is true, had occurred since our acquaintance in 
 this body which I could have wished might have been 
 otherwise ; but I had used philosophy, and forgotten them. 
 I paid the honorable member the attention of listening 20 
 with respect to his first speech ; and when he sat down, 
 though surprised, and I must even say astonished, at 
 some of his opinions, nothing was farther from my in- 
 tention than to commence any personal warfare. Through 
 the whole of the few remarks I made in answer, I avoided, 25 
 studiously and carefully, everything which I thought 
 possible to be construed into disrespect. And, Sir, while 
 there is thus nothing originating here which I have 
 wished at any time, or now wish, to discharge, I must 
 repeat, also, that nothing has been received here which 30 
 rankles, or in any way gives me annoyance. I will not 
 accuse the honorable member of violating the rules of 
 civilized war I will not say that he poisoned his arrows. 
 But whether his shafts were, or were not, dipped in that 
 which would have caused rankling, if they had reached 35
 
 188 Webster. 
 
 their destination, there was not, as it happened, quite 
 strength enough in the bow to bring them to their mark. 
 If he wishes now to gather up those shafts, he must look 
 for them elsewhere; they will not be found fixed and 
 5 quivering in the object at which they were aimed. 
 
 The honorable member complained that I had slept 
 on his speech. I must have slept on it, or not slept at 
 all. The moment the honorable member sat down, his 
 friend from Missouri rose, and, with much honeyed com- 
 
 10 mendation of the speech, suggested that the impressions 
 which it had produced were too charming and delightful 
 to be disturbed by other sentiments or other sounds, and 
 proposed that the Senate should adjourn. Would it have 
 been quite amiable in me, Sir, to interrupt this excellent 
 
 15 good feeling ? Must I not have been absolutely mali- 
 cious, if I could have thrust myself forward to destroy 
 sensations thus pleasing ? Was it not much better and 
 kinder, both to sleep upon them myself, and to allow 
 others also the pleasure of sleeping upon them? But 
 
 20 if it be meant, by sleeping upon his speech, that I took 
 time to prepare a reply to it, it is quite a mistake. Owing 
 to other engagements I could not employ even the inter- 
 val between the adjournment of the Senate and its meet- 
 ing the next morning in attention to the subject of this 
 
 25 debate. Nevertheless, Sir, the mere matter of fact is 
 undoubtedly true. I did sleep on the gentleman's speech, 
 and slept soundly. And I slept equally well on his speech 
 of yesterday, to which I am now replying. It is quite 
 possible that in this respect, also, I possess some advan- 
 
 30 tage over the honorable member, attributable, doubtless, 
 to a cooler temperament on my part ; for, in truth, I slept 
 upon his speeches remarkably well. 
 
 But the gentleman inquires why he was made the ob- 
 ject of such a reply ? Why was he singled out ? If an 
 
 35 attack has been made on the East, he, he assures us, did
 
 Reply to Hayne. 189 
 
 .not begin it; it was made by the gentleman from Mis- 
 souri. Sir, I answered the gentleman's speech because I 
 happened to hear it ; and because, also, I chose to give 
 an answer to that speech, which, if unanswered, I thought 
 most likely to produce injurious impressions. I did not 5 
 stop to inquire who was the original drawer of the bill. 
 I found a responsible indorser before me, and it was my 
 purpose to hold him liable, and to bring him to his just 
 responsibility without delay. But, Sir, this interrogatory 
 of the honorable member was only introductory to another. 10 
 He proceeded to ask me whether I had turned upon him, 
 in this debate, from the consciousness that I should find 
 an overmatch, if I ventured on a contest with his friend f 
 from Missouri. If, Sir, the honorable member, modestiaz 
 gratia, had chosen thus to defer to his friend, and to pay 15 
 him a compliment, without intentional disparagement to 
 others, it would have been quite according to the friendly 
 courtesies of debate, and not at all ungrateful to my own 
 feelings. I am not one of those, Sir, who esteem any 
 tribute of regard, whether light and occasional, or more 20 
 serious and deliberate, which may be bestowed on others, 
 as so much unjustly withholden from themselves. But 
 the tone and manner of the gentleman's question forbid 
 me thus to interpret it. I am not at liberty to consider 
 it as nothing more than a civility to his friend. It had 25 
 an air of taunt and disparagement, something of the lofti- 
 ness of asserted superiority, which does not allow me to 
 pass it over without notice. It was put as a question 
 for me to answer, and so put as if it were difficult for 
 me to answer, whether I deemed the member from Mis- 30 
 souri an overmatch for myself in debate here. It seems 
 to me, Sir, that this is extraordinary language, and an 
 extraordinary tone, for the discussions of this body. 
 
 Matches and overmatches ! Those terms are more ap- 
 plicable elsewhere than here, and fitter for other assem- 35
 
 190 Webster. 
 
 blies than this. Sir, the gentleman seems to forget 
 where and what we are. This is a Senate a Senate 
 of equals, of men of individual honor and personal char- 
 acter, and of absolute independence. We know no mas- 
 5 ters, we acknowledge no dictators. This is a hall for 
 mutual consultation and discussion ; not an arena for the 
 exhibition of champions. I offer myself, Sir, as a match 
 for no man ; I throw the challenge of debate at no man's 
 feet. But then, Sir, since the honorable member has put 
 
 10 the question in a manner that calls for an answer, I will 
 give him an answer ; and I tell him that, holding my- 
 self to be the humblest of the members here, I yet know 
 nothing in the arm of his friend from Missouri, either 
 alone, or when aided by the arm of his friend from South 
 
 15 Carolina, that need deter even me from espousing what- 
 ever opinions I may choose to espouse, from debating 
 whenever I may choose to debate, or from speaking what- 
 ever I may see fit to say, on the floor of the Senate. Sir, 
 when uttered as matter of commendation or compliment, 
 
 20 I should dissent from nothing which the honorable mem- 
 ber might say of his friend. Still less do I put forth 
 any pretensions of my own. But when put to me as 
 matter of taunt, I throw it back, and say to the gentle- 
 man that he could possibly say nothing less likely than 
 
 25 such a comparison to wound my pride of personal char- 
 acter. The anger of its tone rescued the remark from 
 intentional irony, which otherwise, probably, would have 
 been its general acceptation. But, Sir, if it be imagined 
 that by this mutual quotation and commendation ; if it 
 
 30 be supposed that, by casting the characters of the drama, 
 assigning to each his part, to one the attack, to another 
 the cry of onset ; or if it be thought that, by a loud and 
 empty vaunt of anticipated victory, any laurels are to be 
 won here ; if it be imagined, especially, that any or all 
 
 35 these things will shake any purpose of mine, I can tell
 
 Reply to Hayne. 191 
 
 the honorable member, once for all, that he is greatly 
 mistaken, and that he is dealing with one of whose tem- 
 per and character he has yet much to learn. Sir, I shall 
 not allow myself on this occasion, I hope on no occasion, 
 to be betrayed into any loss of temper ; but if provoked, 5 
 as I trust I never shall be, into crimination and recrimi- 
 nation, the honorable member may perhaps find that in 
 that contest there will be blows to take as well as blows 
 to give ; that others can state comparisons as significant, 
 at least, as his own, and that his impunity may possibly 10 
 demand of him whatever powers of taunt and sarcasm 
 he may possess. I commend him to a prudent husbandry 
 of his resources. . . . 
 
 In the course of my observations the other day, Mr. 
 President, I spoke of the Ordinance of 1787, which pro- 15 
 hibits slavery, in all future times, north-west of the Ohio, 
 as a measure of great wisdom and foresight, and one 
 which had been attended with highly beneficial and per- 
 manent consequences. I supposed that, on this point, 
 no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different 20 
 opinions. But the simple expression of this sentiment 
 has led the gentleman, not only into a labored defence 
 of slavery in the abstract, and on principle, but also into 
 a warm accusation against me, as having attacked the 
 system of domestic slavery now existing in the Southern 25 
 States. For all this there was not the slightest founda- 
 tion in anything said or intimated by me. I did not 
 utter a single word which any ingenuity could torture 
 into an attack on the slavery of the South. I said only 
 that it was highly wise and useful, in legislating for the 30 
 North-western country, while it was yet a wilderness, to 
 prohibit the introduction of slaves ; and I added that I 
 presumed there was no reflecting and intelligent person 
 in the neighboring state of Kentucky, who would doubt 
 that, if the same prohibition had been extended at the 35
 
 192 Webster. 
 
 same early period over that Commonwealth, her strength 
 and population would, at this day, have been far greater 
 than they are. If these opinions be thought doubtful, 
 they are, nevertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor 
 5 disrespectful. They attack nobody, and menace nobody. 
 And yet, Sir, the gentleman's optics have discovered, 
 even in the mere expression of this sentiment, what he 
 calls the very spirit of the Missouri question ! He rep- 
 resents me as making an onset on the whole Southland 
 10 manifesting a spirit which would interfere with, and dis- 
 turb, their domestic condition ! 
 
 Sir, this injustice no otherwise surprises me, than as 
 it is Committed here, and committed without the slight- 
 pretence of ground for it. I say it only surprises me 
 15 as being done here; for I know full well that it is, and 
 has been, the settled policy of some persons in the South 
 for years to represent the people of the North as dis- 
 posed to interfere with them in their own exclusive and 
 peculiar concerns. This is a delicate and sensitive point 
 20 in Southern feeling ; and of late years it has always been 
 touched, and generally with effect, whenever the object 
 has been to unite the whole South against Northern men 
 or Northern measures. This feeling, always carefully 
 kept alive, and maintained at too intense a heat to admit 
 25 discrimination or reflection, is a lever of great power in 
 our political machine. It moves vast bodies, and gives 
 to them one and the same direction. But it is without 
 adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists is wholly 
 groundless. There is. not, and never has been, a dispo- 
 se sition in the North to interfere with these interests of 
 the South. Such interference has never been supposed 
 to be within the power of government ; nor has it been 
 in any way attempted. The slavery of the South has 
 always been regarded as a matter of domestic policy, 
 35 left with the States themselves, and with which the fed-
 
 Reply to Hayne. 193 
 
 eral government had nothing to do. Certainly, Sir, I am, 
 and ever have been, of that opinion. The gentleman, 
 indeed, argues that slavery in the abstract is no evil. 
 Most assuredly, I need not say, I differ with him alto- 
 gether and most widely, on that point. I regard domestic 5 
 slavery as one of the greatest evils, both moral and polit- 
 ical. But whether it be a malady, and whether it be 
 curable, and, if so, by what means ; or, on the other hand, 
 whether it be the vulnus immedicabile of the social sys- 
 tem I leave it to those whose right and duty it is to 10 
 inquire and to decide. And this, I believe, Sir, is, and 
 uniformly has been, the sentiment of the North. . . . 
 
 [In support of this last statement Mr. Webster appeals to the 
 history of attempts made to enlist the first Congress in the aboli- 
 tion of slavery. These attempts resulted in the famous resolutions 15 
 reported by a committee composed almost exclusively of North- 
 ern men, and adopted by a House two-thirds of whose members 
 were from the North, declaring that Congress has " no authority 
 to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of 
 them in any of the States."] 20 
 
 The fears of the South, whatever fears they might 
 have entertained, were allayed and quieted by this early 
 decision ; and so remained till they were excited afresh, 
 without cause, but for collateral and indirect purposes. 
 When it became necessary, or was thought so by some 25 
 political persons, to find an unvarying ground for the 
 exclusion of Northern men from confidence and from 
 lead in the affairs of the republic, then, and not till then, 
 the cry was raised, and the feeling industriously excited, 
 that the influence of Northern men in the x public councils 30 
 would endanger the relation of master and l slave. For 
 myself, I claim no other merit than that this gross and 
 enormous injustice towards the whole North has not 
 wrought upon me to change my opinions or my political
 
 194 Webster. 
 
 conduct. I hope I am above violating my principles, 
 even under the smart of injury and false imputations. 
 Unjust suspicions and undeserved reproach, whatever 
 pain I may experience from them, will not induce me, I 
 5 trust, to overstep the limits of constitutional duty, or to 
 encroach on the rights of others. The domestic slavery 
 of the Southern States I leave where I find it, in the 
 hands of their own governments. It is their affair, not 
 mine. Nor do I complain of the peculiar effect which 
 
 10 the magnitude of that population has had in the distri- 
 bution of power under this federal government. We 
 ,know, Sir, that the representation of the States in the 
 other House is not equal. We know that great advan- 
 tage in that respect is enjoyed by the slave-holding 
 
 15 States ; and we know, too, that the intended equivalent 
 for that advantage, that is to say, the imposition of direct 
 taxes in the same ratio, has become merely nominal, the 
 habit of the government being almost invariably to col- 
 lect its revenue from other sources and in other modes. 
 
 20 Nevertheless, I do not complain ; nor would I counte- 
 nance any movement to alter this arrangement of repre- 
 sentation. It is the original bargain, the compact; let it 
 stand; let the advantage of it be fully enjoyed. The 
 Union itself is too full of benefit to be hazarded in 
 
 25 propositions for changing its original basis. I go for 
 the Constitution as it is, and for the Union as it is. 
 But I am resolved not to submit in silence to accusa- 
 tions either against myself individually or against the 
 North, wholly unfounded and unjust ; accusations which 
 
 30 impute to us a disposition to evade the constitutional 
 compact, and to extend the power of the government 
 over the internal laws and domestic condition of the 
 States. All such accusations, wherever and whenever 
 made, all insinuations of the existence of any such pur- 
 
 35 poses, I know and feel to be groundless and injurious.
 
 Reply to Hayne. 195 
 
 And we must confide in Southern gentlemen themselves; 
 we must trust to those whose integrity of heart and mag- 
 nanimity of feeling will lead them to a desire to maintain 
 and disseminate truth, and who possess the means of its 
 diffusion with the Southern public ; we must leave it to 5 
 them to disabuse that public of its prejudices. But in 
 the mean time, for my own part, I shall continue to act 
 justly, whether those towards whom justice is exercised 
 receive it with candor or with contumely. . . 
 
 [Mr. Webster next refutes the charge of inconsistency between 
 his present position regarding the public lands and that taken 
 by him in 1825.] 
 
 We approach, at length, Sir, to a more important part 
 of the honorable gentleman's observations. Since it 
 does not accord with my views of justice and policy to 15 
 give away the public lands altogether, as mere matter of 
 gratuity, I .am asked by the honorable gentleman on what 
 ground it is that I consent to vote them away in partic- 
 ular instances. How, he inquires, do I reconcile with 
 these professed sentiments, my support of measures 20 
 appropriating portions of the lands to particular roads, 
 particular canals, particular rivers, and particular insti- 
 tutions of education in the West ? This leads, Sir, to 
 the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between 
 the honorable gentleman and myself. On my part, I 25 
 look upon all these objects as connected with the com- 
 mon good, fairly embraced in its object and its terms ; 
 he, on the contrary, deems them all, if good at all, only 
 local good. This is our difference. The interrogatory 
 which he proceeded to put at once explains this differ- 30 
 ence. " What interest," asks he, " has South Carolina in 
 a canal in Ohio ? " Sir, this very question is full of sig- 
 nificance. It develops the gentleman's whole political 
 system ; and its answer expounds mine. Here we differ.
 
 196 Webster. 
 
 I look upon a road over the Alleghanies, a canal round 
 the falls of uhe Ohio, or a canal or railway from the 
 Atlantic to the Western waters, as being an object large 
 and extensive enough to be fairly said to be for the com- 
 
 5 mon benefit. The gentleman thinks otherwise, and this 
 is the key to his construction of the powers of the gov- 
 ernment. He may well ask what interest has South 
 Carolina in a canal in Ohio. On his system, it is true, 
 she has no interest. On that system Ohio and Carolina 
 
 10 are different governments and different countries ; con- 
 nected here, it is true, by some slight and ill-defined bond 
 of union, but in all main respects separate and diverse. 
 On that system Carolina has no more interest in a canal 
 in Ohio than in Mexico. The gentleman, therefore, only 
 
 15 follows out his own principles ; he does no more than 
 arrive at the natural conclusions of his own doctrines ; 
 he only announces the true results of that creed which 
 he has adopted himself, and would persuade others to 
 adopt, when he thus declares that South Carolina has no 
 
 20 interest in a public work in Ohio. 
 
 Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not 
 reason thus. Our notion of things is entirely different. 
 We look upon the States, not as separated, but as united. 
 We love to dwell on that union, and on the mutual hap- 
 
 25 piness which it has so much promoted, and the common 
 renown which it has so greatly contributed to acquire. 
 In our contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are parts of the 
 same country ; States, united under the same general 
 government, having interests common, associated, inter- 
 
 30 mingled. In whatever is within the proper sphere of 
 the constitutional power of this government, w^ look 
 upon the States as one. We do not impose geographical 
 
 ~"limrts"to"our^)alEri6tic feeling or regard ; we do not follow 
 rivers and mountains and lines of latitude to find boun- 
 
 35 daries beyond which public improvements do not benefit
 
 Reply to Hayne. 197 
 
 us. We who come here as agents and representatives of 
 these narrow-minded and selfish men of New England, 
 consider ourselves as bound to regard with an equal eye 
 the good of the whole, in whatever is within our powers 
 of legislation. Sir, if a railroad or canal, beginning in 5 
 South Carolina and ending in South Carolina, appeared 
 to me to be of national importance and national magni- 
 tude, believing, as I do, that the power of government 
 extends to the encouragement of works of that descrip- 
 tion, if I were to stand up here and ask, "What interest 10 
 has Massachusetts in a railroad in South Carolina? I 
 should not be willing to face my constituents. These 
 same narrow-minded men would tell me that they had 
 sent me to act for the whole country, and that one who 
 possessed too little comprehension, either of intellect or 15 
 feeling, one who was not large enough, both in mind and 
 in heart, to embrace the whole, was not fit to be intrusted 
 with the interest of any part. 
 
 Sir, I do not desire to enlarge the powers of the gov- 
 ernment by unjustifiable construction, nor to exercise 20 
 any not within a fair interpretation. But when it is 
 believed that a power does exist, then it is, in my judg- 
 ment/bo be exercised for the general benefit of the whole> 
 So far as respects the exercise of such a power, the States 
 are one. It was the very object of the Constitution to 25 
 create unity of interests to the extent of the powers of 
 the general government. In war and peace we are one ; 
 in commerce, one ; because the authority of the general 
 government reaches to war and peace, and to the regula- 
 tion of commerce. I have never seen any more difficulty so 
 in erecting lighthouses on the lakes, than on the ocean ; 
 in improving the harbors of inland seas, than if they 
 were within the ebb and flow of the tide ; or in removing 
 obstructions in the vast streams of the West, more than 
 in any work to facilitate commerce on the Atlantic coast. 36
 
 198 Webster. 
 
 If there be any power for one, there is power also for the 
 other ; and they are all and equally for the common good 
 of the country. 
 
 There are other objects, apparently more local, or the 
 5 benefit of which is less general, towards which, neverthe- 
 less, I have concurred with others to give aid by dona- 
 tions of land. It is proposed to construct a road in or 
 through one of the new States in which this govern- 
 ment possesses large quantities of land. Have the 
 
 10 United States no right, or, as a great and untaxed 
 proprietor, are they under no obligation, to contribute 
 to an object thus calculated to promote the common 
 good of all the proprietors, themselves included ? And 
 even with respect to education, which is the extreme 
 
 15 case, let the question be considered. In the first placer' 
 
 (as we have seen, it was made matter of compact with 
 
 these States that they should do their part to promote 
 
 education. In the next place^our whole system of land 
 
 laws proceeds on the idea that education is for the com- 
 
 20 mon good ; because in every division a certain portion 
 is uniformly reserved and appropriated for the use of 
 schoolsj And, finallyyhave not these new States singu- 
 larly strong claims founded on the ground already stated, 
 that the government is a great untaxed proprietor, in the 
 
 25 ownership of the soil)? It is a consideration of great 
 importance, that probably there is in no part of the 
 country, or of the world, so great call for the means 
 of education, as in these new States ; owing to the vast 
 number of persons within those ages in which education 
 
 30 and instruction are usually received, if received at all. 
 This is the natural consequence of recency of settlement 
 and rapid increase. The census of these States shows 
 how great a proportion of the whole population occupies 
 the classes between infancy and manhood. These are the 
 
 35 wide fields, and here is the deep and quick soil for the
 
 Reply to Hayne. 199 
 
 seeds of knowledge and virtue ; and this is the favored 
 season, the very spring-time for sowing them. Let them 
 be disseminated without stint. Let them be scattered 
 with a bountiful hand, broadcast. Whatever the gov- 
 ernment can fairly do towards these objects, in my 5 
 opinion, ought to be done. 
 
 These, Sir, are the grounds, succinctly stated, on which 
 my votes for grants of lands for particular objects rest; 
 while I maintain at the same time, -t^iat it is all a com- 
 mon fund, for the common benefit^ And reasons like 10 
 these, I presume, have influenced the votes of other gen- 
 tlemen of New England. Those who have a different 
 view of the powers of the government, of course, come to 
 different conclusions on these, as on other questions. I 
 observed, when speaking on this subject before, that if 15 
 we looked to any measure, whether for a road, a canal, 
 or anything else, intended for the improvement of the 
 West, it would be found that, if the New England ayes 
 were struck out of the lists of votes, the Southern noes 
 would always have rejected the measure. The truth of 20 
 this has not been denied, and cannot be denied. In stat- 
 ing this, I thought it just to ascribe it to the constitu- 
 tional scruples of the South, rather than to any other 
 less favorable or less charitable cause. But no sooner 
 had I done this, than the honorable gentleman asks if 25 
 I reproach him and his friends with their constitutional 
 scruples. Sir, I reproach nobody. I stated a fact, and 
 gave the most respectful reason for it that occurred to 
 me. The gentleman cannot deny the fact ; he may, if he 
 choose, disclaim the reason. It is not long since I had 30 
 occasion, in presenting a petition from his own State, to 
 account for its being intrusted to my hands, by saying 
 that the constitutional opinions of the gentleman and 
 his worthy colleague prevented them from supporting it. 
 Sir, did I state this as matter of reproach ? Far from it. 35
 
 ',, 
 
 200 Webster. 
 
 Did I attempt to find any other cause than an honest one 
 for these scruples ? Sir, I did not. It did not become 
 me to doubt or to insinuate that the gentleman had 
 either changed his sentiments, or that he had made up a 
 5 set of constitutional opinions accommodated to any par- 
 ticular combination of political occurrences. Had I done 
 so, I should have felt that, while I was entitled to little 
 credit in thus questioning other people's motives, I justi- 
 fied the whole world in suspecting my own. But how 
 
 10 has the gentleman returned this respect for others' opin- 
 ions ? His own candor and justice, how have they been 
 exhibited towards the motives of others, while he has 
 been at so much pains to maintain, what nobody has 
 disputed, the purity of his own? Why, Sir, he has 
 
 15 asked when, and how, and why, New England votes were 
 found going for measures favorable to the West ? He 
 has demanded to be informed whether all this did not 
 begin in 1825, and while the election of President was 
 still pending ? . . . 
 
 20 [Mr. Webster answers this insinuation by showing that the 
 generous policy of New England toward the West found ex- 
 pression years before the political exigency referred to ; and 
 that it was embodied in the two well-known Acts of 1820 and 
 1821, "by far the most important general measures respecting 
 
 25 the public lands which have been adopted in the last twenty 
 years."] 
 
 Having recurred to these two important measures, in 
 answer to the gentleman's inquiries, I must now beg 
 permission to go back to a period yet somewhat earlier, 
 so for the purpose of still further showing ho^much, or 
 rather how little, reason there is for the gentleman's 
 insinuation that political hopes or fears, or party asso- 
 ciations, were the grounds of these New England votes. 
 And after what has been said, I hope it may be forgiven
 
 
 / /' 
 
 
 
 Reply to Hayne. 201 
 
 -4x - 
 
 me if I allude to some political opinions and votes of my 
 
 own, of very little public importance certainly, but which, 
 from the time at which they were given and expressed, 
 may pass for good witnesses on this occasion. 
 
 This government, Mr. President, from its origin to the 5 
 peace of 1815, had been too much engrossed with vari- 
 ous other important concerns to be able to turn its 
 thoughts inward, and look to the development of its 
 vast internal resources. In the early part of President 
 Washington's administration, it was fully occupied with 10 
 completing its own organization, providing for the public 
 debt, defending the frontiers, and maintaining domestic 
 peace. Before the termination of that administration 
 the fires of the French Revolution blazed forth, as from 
 a new-opened volcano, and the whole breadth of the 15 
 ocean did not secure us from its effects. The smoke 
 and the cinders reached us, though not the burning lava. 
 Difficult and agitating questions, embarrassing to gov- 
 ernment and dividing public opinion, sprung out of the 
 new state of our foreign relations, and were succeeded by 20 
 others, and yet again, by others, equally embarrassing 
 and equally exciting division and discord, through the 
 long series of twenty years, till they finally issued in the 
 war with England. Down to the close of that war no 
 distinct, marked, and deliberate attention had been given, 25 
 or could have been given, to the internal condition of the 
 country, its capacities of improvement, or the constitu- 
 tional power of the government in regard to objects con- 
 nected with such improvement. 
 
 The peace, Mr. President, brought about an entirely 30 
 new and a most interesting state of things ; it opened 
 to us other prospects and suggested other duties. We 
 ourselves were changed^ and the whole world was 
 changed. The pacification of Europe, after June, 
 1815, assumed a firm and permanent aspect. The na-35
 
 202 Webster. 
 
 tions evidently manifested that they were disposed for 
 - peace. Some agitation of the waves might be expected, 
 
 -^ even after the storm had subsided, but the tendency was, 
 
 strongly and rapidly, towards settled repose. 
 5 It so happened, Sir, that I was at that time a mem- 
 ber of Congress, and, like others, naturally turned my 
 thoughts to the contemplation of the recently altered 
 condition of the country and of the world. It appeared 
 plainly enough to me, as well as to wiser and more 
 
 10 experienced men, that the policy of the government 
 would naturally take a start in a new direction; be- 
 cause new directions would necessarily be given to the 
 pursuits and occupations of the people. We had pushed 
 our commerce far and fast, under the advantage of a 
 
 15 neutral flag. But there were now no longer flags, either 
 neutral or belligerent. The harvest of neutrality had 
 been great, but we had gathered it all. With the peace 
 of Europe it was obvious there would spring up in her 
 circle of nations a revived and invigorated spirit of trade, 
 
 20 and a new activity in all the business and objects of 
 civilized life. Hereafter, our commercial gains were to 
 be earned only by success in a close and intense competi- 
 tion. Other nations would produce for themselves, and 
 carry for themselves, and manufacture for themselves, to 
 
 25 the full extent of their abilities. The crops of our plains 
 would no longer sustain European armies, nor our ships 
 longer supply those whom war had rendered unable to 
 supply themselves. It was obvious that, under these 
 circumstances, the country would begin to survey itself, 
 
 30 and to estimate its own capacity of improvement. 
 
 And this improvement how was it to be accom- 
 plished, and who was to accomplish it ? We were ten 
 or twelve millions of people, spread over almost half a 
 world. We were more than twenty States, some stretch- 
 
 35 ing along the same seaboard, some along the same line of
 
 Reply to Hayne. 203 
 
 inland frontier, and others on opposite banks of the same 
 vast rivers. Two considerations at once presented them- 
 selves with great force in looking at this state of things. 
 One was, that that great branch of improvement which 
 consisted in furnishing new facilities of intercourse, 5 
 necessarily ran into different States in every leading 
 instance, and would benefit the citizens of all such 
 States. No one State, therefore, in such cases, would 
 assume the whole expense, nor was the co-operation 
 of several States to be expected. Take the instance of ic 
 the Delaware breakwater. It will cost several millions 
 of money. Would Pennsylvania alone ever have con- 
 structed it? Certainly never while this Union lasts, 
 because it is not for her sole benefit. Would Pennsyl- 
 vania, Xew Jersey, and Delaware have united to accom- 15 
 plish it at their joint expense ? Certainly not, for the 
 same reason. It could not be done, therefore, but by 
 the general government. The same may be said of the 
 large inland undertakings, except that, in them, govern- 
 ment, instead of bearing the whole expense, co-operates 20 
 with others who bear a part. The other consideration is, 
 that the United States have the means. They enjoy the 
 revenues derived from commerce, and the States have no 
 abundant and easy sources of public income. The cus- 
 tom-houses fill the general treasury, while the States 25 
 have scanty resources, except by resort to heavy direct 
 taxes. 
 
 Under this view of things, I thought it necessary to 
 settle, at least for myself, some definite notions with 
 respect to the powers of the government in regard to 30 
 internal affairs. It may not savor too much of self-com- 
 mendation to remark that, with this object, I considered 
 the Constitution, its judicial construction, its contempo- 
 raneous exposition, and the whole history of the legisla- 
 tion of Congress under it ; and I arrived at the conclusion 35
 
 204 Webster. 
 
 that government had power to accomplish sundry objects, 
 or aid in. their accomplishment, which are now com- 
 monly spoken of as internal improvements. That conclu- 
 sion, Sir, may have been right, or it may have been wrong. 
 
 5 I am not about to argue the grounds of it at large. I say 
 only, that it was adopted and acted on even so early as 
 in 1816. Yes, Mr. President, I made up my opinion, and 
 determined on my intended course of political conduct 
 on these subjects, in the Fourteenth Congress, in 1816. 
 
 10 And now, Mr. President, I have further to say, that I 
 made up these opinions, and entered on this course of 
 political conduct T&ucro duce. Yes, Sir, I pursued in all 
 this a South Carolina track on the doctrines of internal 
 improvement. South Carolina, as she was then repre- 
 
 15 sented in the other House, set forth in 1816, under a 
 fresh and leading breeze, and I was among the followers. 
 But if my leader sees new lights, and turns a sharp 
 corner, unless I see new lights also, I keep straight on 
 in the same path. I repeat that leading gentlemen from 
 
 20 South Carolina were first and foremost in behalf of the 
 doctrines of internal improvements, when those doctrines 
 came first to be considered and acted upon in Congress. 
 The debate on the bank question, on the tariff of 1816, 
 and on the direct tax, will show who was who, and what 
 
 25 was what, at that time. The tariff of 1816 (one of the 
 plain cases of oppression and usurpation, from which, if 
 the government does not recede, individual States may 
 justly secede from the government) is, Sir, in truth, a 
 South Carolina tariff, supported by South Carolina votes. 
 
 30 But for those votes, it could not have passed in the form 
 in which it did pass ; whereas, if it had depended on 
 Massachusetts votes, it would have been lost. Does not 
 the honorable gentleman well know all this ? There are 
 certainly those who do full well know it all. I do not 
 
 35 say this to reproach South Carolina. I only state the
 
 Reply to Hayne. 205 
 
 fact ; and I think it will appear to be true, that among 
 the earliest and boldest advocates of the tariff as a meas- 
 ure of protection, and on the express ground of protec- 
 tion, were leading gentlemen of South Carolina in 
 Congress. I did not then, and cannot now, under- 5 
 stand their language in any other sense. While this 
 tariff of 1816 was under discussion in the House of 
 Kepresentatives, an honorable gentleman from Georgia, 
 now of this House [Mr. Forsyth], moved to reduce the 
 proposed duty on cotton. He failed by four votes, South 10 
 Carolina giving three votes (enough to have turned the 
 scale) against his motion. The act, Sir, then passed, and 
 received on its passage the support of a majority of the 
 Kepresentatives of South Carolina present and voting. 
 This act is the first in the order of those now denounced 15 
 as plain usurpations. We see it daily in the list, by the 
 side of those of 1824 and 1828, as a case of manifest 
 oppression, justifying disunion. I put it home to the 
 honorable member from South Carolina, that his own 
 State was not only " art and part " in this measure, but 20 
 the causa causans. Without her aid this seminal prin- 
 ciple of mischief, this root of Upas, could not have been 
 planted. I have already said, and it is true, that this 
 act proceeded on the ground of protection. It interfered 
 directly with existing interests of great value and amount. 25 
 It cut up the Calcutta cotton trade by the roots ; but it 
 passed, nevertheless, and it passed on the principle of 
 protecting manufactures, on the principle against free 
 trade, on the principle opposed to that which lets us 
 alone. 30 
 
 Such, Mr. President, were the opinions of important 
 and leading gentlemen from South Carolina on the sub- 
 ject of internal improvement, in 1816. I went out of 
 Congress the next year, and returning again in 1823, 
 thought I found South Carolina where I had left her. 35
 
 206 Webster. 
 
 I really supposed that all things remained as they were, 
 and that the South Carolina doctrine of internal improve- 
 ments would be defended by the same eloquent voices 
 and the same strong arms as formerly. In the lapse of 
 5 these six years, it is true, political associations had as- 
 sumed a new aspect and new divisions. A strong party 
 had arisen in the South hostile to the doctrine of inter- 
 nal improvements. Anti-consolidation was the flag under 
 which this party fought; and its supporters inveighed 
 
 10 against internal improvements, much after the manner 
 in which the honorable gentleman has now inveighed 
 against them, as part and parcel of the system of consol- 
 idation. Whether this party arose in South Carolina 
 itself, or in the neighborhood, is more than I know. I 
 
 15 think the latter. However that may have been, there 
 were those found in South Carolina ready to make war 
 upon it, and who did make intrepid war upon it. Xames 
 being regarded as things in such controversies, they be- 
 stowed on the anti-improvement gentlemen the appella- 
 
 20 tion of Eadicals. Yes, Sir, the appellation of Radicals, 
 as a term of distinction applicable and applied to those 
 who denied the liberal doctrines of internal improvement, 
 originated, according to the best of my recollection, some- 
 where between North Carolina and Georgia. Well, Sir, 
 
 25 these mischievous Eadicals were to be put down, and 
 the strong arm of South Carolina was stretched out to 
 put them down. About this time, Sir, I returned to Con- 
 gress. The battle with the Eadicals had been fought, 
 and our South Carolina champions of the doctrines of 
 
 30 internal improvement had nobly maintained their ground, 
 and were understood to have achieved a victory. We 
 looked upon them as conquerors. They had driven back 
 the enemy with discomfiture, a thing, by the way, 
 Sir, which is not always performed when it is promised. 
 
 35 A gentleman to whom I have already referred in this
 
 Reply to Hayne. 207 
 
 debate had come into Congress, during my absence from 
 it, from South Carolina, and had brought with him a 
 high reputation for ability. He came from a school with 
 which we had been acquainted, et noscitur a sociis. I 
 hold in my hand, Sir, a printed speech of this distin- 5 
 guished gentleman [Mr. McDuffie] " On Internal Improve- 
 ments," delivered about the period to which I now refer, 
 and printed with a few introductory remarks upon con- 
 solidation; in which, Sir, I think he quite consolidated 
 the arguments of his opponents, the Kadicals, if to crush 10 
 be to consolidate. 
 
 [Mr. Webster quotes passages from the speech claiming for the 
 "Republican" party of that time, the dominant party in the 
 South, and for the South Carolinian delegation in Congress, 
 led by Mr. Calhoun, the honor of originating the system and 15 
 policy of internal improvements.] 
 
 Such are the opinions, Sir, which were maintained by 
 South Carolina gentlemen in the House of Representa- 
 tives, on the subject of internal improvements, when I 
 took my seat there as a member from Massachusetts in 20 
 1823. But this is not all. We had a bill before us, and 
 passed it in that House, entitled, " An Act to procure the 
 necessary surveys, plans, and estimates upon the subject 
 of roads and canals." It authorized the President to 
 cause surveys and estimates to be made of the routes of 25 
 such roads and canals as he might deem of national im- 
 portance in a commercial or military point of view, or 
 for the transportation of the mail, and appropriated 
 thirty thousand dollars out of the treasury to defray the 
 expense. This act, though preliminary in its nature, 30 
 covered the whole ground. It took for granted the com- 
 plete power of internal improvement, as far as any of 
 its advocates had ever contended for it. Having passed 
 the other House, the bill came up to the Senate, and was
 
 208 Webster. 
 
 here considered and debated in April, 1824. The honor- 
 able member from South Carolina was a member of the 
 Senate at that time. While the bill was under consid- 
 eration here, a motion was made to add the following 
 5 proviso : 
 
 "Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be 
 construed to affirm or admit a power in Congress, on 
 their own authority, to make roads or canals within any 
 of the States of the Union." The yeas and nays were 
 
 10 taken on this proviso, and the honorable member voted 
 in the negative ! The proviso failed. 
 
 A motion was then made to add this proviso ; viz., 
 "Provided, That the faith of the United States is 
 hereby pledged, that no money shall ever be expended 
 
 15 for roads or canals, except it shall be among the several 
 
 States, and in the same proportion as direct taxes are 
 
 laid and assessed by the provisions of the Constitution." 
 
 The honorable member voted against this proviso also, 
 
 and it failed. The bill was then put on its passage, and 
 
 20 the honorable member voted for it, and it passed, and 
 became a law. 
 
 !N"ow, it strikes me^ Sir, that there is no maintaining 
 these votes but upon tne power of internal improvement, 
 in its broadest sense. In truth, these bills for surveys 
 
 25 and estimates have always been considered as test ques- 
 tions; they show who is for and Avho against internal 
 improvement. This law itself went the whole length, 
 and assumed the full and complete power. The gentle- 
 man's votes sustained that power, in every form in which 
 
 30 the various propositions to amend presented it. He went 
 for the entire and unrestrained authority, without con- 
 sulting the States, and without agreeing to any propor- 
 tionate distribution. And now suffer me to remind you, 
 Mr. President, that it is this very same power, thus sanc- 
 
 35 tioned in every form by the gentleman's own opinion,
 
 Reply to Hayne. 209 
 
 that is so plain and manifest a usurpation that the State 
 of South Carolina is supposed to be justified in refusing 
 submission to any laws carrying the power into effect. 
 Truly, Sir, is not this a little too hard ? May we not 
 crave some rnercy, under favor and protection of the gen- 5 
 tleman's own authority ? Admitting that a road, or a 
 canal, must be written down flat usurpation as was ever - 
 committed, may we find no mitigation in our respect for 
 his place and his vote, as one that knows the law ? 
 
 The tariff, which South Carolina had an efficient hand 10 
 in establishing in 1816, and this asserted power of inter- 
 nal improvement, advanced by her in the same year, and, 
 as we have seen, approved and sanctioned by her repre- 
 sentatives in 1824 these two measures are the great 
 grounds on which she is now thought to be justified in 15 
 breaking up the Union, if she sees fit to break it up ! 
 
 I may now safely say, I think, that we have had the 
 authority of leading and distinguished gentlemen from 
 South Carolina in support of the doctrine of internal 
 improvement. I repeat that, up to 1824, I, for one, fol- 20 
 lowed South Carolina ; but when that star, in its ascen- 
 sion, veered off in an unexpected direction, I relied on 
 its light no longer. 
 
 [Here the Yice-President said, ' ' Does the chair understand 
 the gentleman from Massachusetts to say that the person now 25 
 occupying the chair of the Senate has changed his opinions 
 on the subject of internal improvements ? "] 
 
 From nothing ever said to me, Sir, have I had reason 
 to know of any change in the opinions of the person fill- 
 ing the chair of the Senate. If such change has taken so 
 place, I regret it. I speak generally of the State of South 
 Carolina. Individuals we know there are who hold 
 opinions favorable to the power. An application for its 
 exercise, in behalf of a public work in South Carolina
 
 210 Webster. 
 
 itself, is now pending, I believe, in the other House, 
 presented by members from that State. 
 
 I have thus, Sir, perhaps not without some tediousness 
 of detail, shown, if I am in error on the subject of inter- 
 
 5 nal improvement, how, and in what company, I fell into 
 that error. If I am wrong, it is apparent who misled 
 me. 
 
 I go to other remarks of the honorable member ; and I 
 have to complain of an entire misapprehension of what 
 
 10 I said on the subject of the national debt, though I can 
 hardly perceive how any one could misunderstand me. 
 What I said was, not that I wished to put off the pay- 
 ment of the debt, but, on the contrary ^that I had always 
 voted for every measure for its reduction as uniformly 
 
 15 as the gentleman himself, j He seems to claim the ex- 
 clusive merit of a disposition to reduce the public charge. 
 I do not allow it to him. / As a debt, I was, I am, for 
 paying it, because it is a charge on our finances and 
 on the industry of the country.^) But I observed that I 
 
 20 thought I perceived a morbid fervor on that subject 
 an excessive anxiety to pay off the debt, not so much 
 because it is a debt simply, as because,^while it lasts, it 
 furnishes one objection to disunion.fi It is, while it con- 
 tinues, a tie of common interest/A I did not impute such 
 
 25 motives to the honorable member himself, but that there 
 is such a feeling in existence I have not a particle of 
 doubt. The most I said was, that if one effect of the 
 debt was to strengthen our Union, that effect itself was 
 not regretted by me, however much others might regret 
 
 30 it. The gentleman has not seen how to reply to this 
 otherwise than by supposing me to have advanced the 
 doctrine -that a national debt is a national blessing. 
 Others, I must hope, will find much less difficulty in 
 understanding me. I distinctly and pointedly cautioned 
 
 35 the honorable member not to understand me as express-
 
 Reply to Hayne. 211 
 
 ing an opinion favorable to the continuance of the debt. 
 I repeated this caution, and repeated it more than once ; 
 but it was thrown away. 
 
 On yet another point I was still more unaccountably 
 misunderstood. The gentleman had harangued against 5 
 " consolidation." I told him in reply that there was 
 one kind of consolidation to which I was attached, and 
 thai/was the consolidation of our Union ; and that this 
 was precisely that consolidation to which I feared others 
 were not attached, and that (such consolidation was the 10 
 very end of the Constitution^the leading object, as they 
 had informed us themselves, which its framers had kept 
 in view. I turned to their communication, and read their 
 very words, " the consolidation of the Union," and ex- 
 pressed my devotion to this sort of consolidation. I said 15 
 in terms that I wished not, in the slightest degree, to 
 augment the powers of this government; (that my object 
 was to preserve, not to enlarge ; and that oy consolidat- 
 ing the Union I understood no more than the strength- 
 ening of the Union, and perpetuating it) Having been 20 
 thus explicit, having thus read from the printed book 
 the precise words which I adopted as expressing my own 
 sentiments, it passes comprehension how any man could 
 understand me as contending for an extension of the 
 powers of the government, or for, consolidation in that 25 
 odious sense, in which it means an accumulation in the 
 federal government of the powers properly belonging to 
 the State J/V^-^- 
 
 I repeat, Sir, that, in adopting the sentiment of the 
 framers of the Constitution, I read their language audi- 30 
 bly, and word for word ; and I pointed out the distinc- 
 tion, just as fully as I have now done, between the 
 consolidation of the Union and that other obnoxious con- 
 solidation which I disclaimed. And yet the honorable 
 member misunderstood me. The gentleman had said 35
 
 212 Webster. 
 
 that he wished for no fixed revenue, not a shilling. 
 
 If by a word he could convert the Capitol into gold, he 
 
 would not do it. Why all this fear of revenue ? Why, 
 
 (Sir, because, as the gentleman told us, it tends to consol- 
 
 5 idation. Now, this can mean neither more nor less than 
 
 that a common revenue is a common interest, and that 
 
 all common interests tend to preserve the union of the 
 
 States. I confess I like that tendency ; if the gentleman 
 
 dislikes it, he is right in deprecating a shilling of fixed 
 
 10 revenue/ So much, Sir, for consolidation. . . . 
 
 Professing to be provoked by what he chose to con- 
 sider a charge made by me against South Carolina, the 
 honorable member, Mr. President, has taken up a new 
 crusade against New England. Leaving altogether the 
 
 15 subject of the public lands, in which his success, perhaps, 
 had been neither distinguished nor satisfactory, and let- 
 ting go, also, of the topic of the tariff, he sallied forth in 
 a general assault on the opinions, politics, and parties of 
 New England, as they have been exhibited in the last 
 
 20 thirty years. This is natural. The " narrow policy " 
 of the public lands had proved a legal settlement in 
 South Carolina, and was not to be removed. The "ac- 
 cursed policy" of the tariff, also, had established the 
 fact of its birth and parentage in the same State. No 
 
 25 wonder, therefore, the gentleman wished to carry the 
 war, as he expressed it, into the enemy's country. Pru- 
 dently willing to quit these subjects, he was, doubtless, 
 desirous of fastening on others, which could not be trans- 
 ferred south of Mason and Dixon's line. The politics of 
 
 30 New England became his theme ; and it was in this part 
 of his speech, I think, that he menaced me with such 
 sore discomfiture. Discomfiture ! Why, Sir, when he 
 attacks anything which I maintain, and overthrows it, 
 when he turns the right or left of any position which I 
 
 3* take up, when he drives me from any ground I choose to
 
 Reply to Hayne. 213 
 
 occupy, lie may then talk of discomfiture, but not tiL 
 that distant day. What has he done ? Has he main- 
 tained his own charges ? Has he proved what he alleged ? 
 Has he sustained himself in his attack on the govern- 
 ment, and on the history of the North, in the matter of 5 
 the public lands ? Has he disproved a fact, refuted a 
 proposition, weakened an argument, maintained by me ? 
 Has he come within beat of drum of any position of 
 mine ? Oh, no ; but he has " carried the war into the 
 enemy's country ! " Carried the war into the enemy's 10 
 country ! Yes, Sir, and what sort of a war has he made 
 of it ? Why, Sir, he has stretched a drag-net over the 
 whole surface of perished pamphlets, indiscreet sermons, 
 frothy paragraphs, and fuming popular addresses ; over 
 whatever the pulpit in its moments of alarm, the press 15 
 in its heats, and parties in their extravagance, have sev- 
 erally thrown off in times of general excitement and vio- 
 lence. He has thus swept together a mass of such things 
 as, but that they are now old and cold, the public health 
 would have required him rather to leave in their state 20 
 of dispersion. For a good long hour or two we had the 
 unbroken pleasure of listening to the honorable member, 
 while he recited with his usual grace and spirit, and with 
 evident high gusto, speeches, pamphlets, addresses, and 
 all the et ceteras of the political press, such as warm 25 
 heads produce in warm times ; and such as it would be 
 " discomfiture " indeed for any one, whose taste did not 
 delight in that sort of reading, to be obliged to peruse. 
 This is his war. This it is to carry war into the enemy's 
 country. It is in an invasion of this sort that he flatters 30 
 himself with the expectation of gaining laurels fit to 
 adorn a Senator's brow ! 
 
 Mr. President, I shall not, it will not, I trust, be 
 expected that I should, either now or at any time, sepa- 
 rate this farrago into parts, and answer and examine its 36
 
 214 Webster. 
 
 components. I shall barely bestow upon it all a general 
 remark or two. In the run of forty years, Sir, under this 
 Constitution, we have experienced sundry successive vio- 
 lent party contests. Party arose, indeed, with the Con- 
 6 stitution itself, and, in some form or other, has attended 
 it through the greater part of its history. Whether any 
 other constitution than the old Articles of Confederation 
 was desirable, was itself a question on which parties 
 divided; if a new Constitution were framed, what 
 
 10 powers should be given to it was another question ; 
 and, when it had been formed, what was, in fact, the 
 just extent of the powers actually conferred was a third. 
 Parties, as we know, existed under the first administra- 
 tion, as distinctly marked as those which have mani- 
 
 15 fested themselves at any subsequent period. The 
 contest immediately preceding the political change in 
 -1801, and that, again, which existed at the commence- 
 ment of the late war, are other instances of party ex- 
 citement, of something more than usual strength and 
 
 20 intensity. In all these conflicts there was, no doubt, 
 much of violence on both and all sides. It would be 
 impossible, if one had a fancy for such employment, to 
 adjust the relative quantum of violence between these 
 contending parties. There was enough in each, as must 
 
 25 always be expected in popular governments. With a 
 great deal of proper and decorous discussion there was 
 mingled a great deal, also, of declamation, virulence, 
 crimination, and abuse. In regard to any party, proba- 
 bly, at one of the leading epochs in the history of parties, 
 
 30 enough may be found to make out another inflamed exhi- 
 bition, not unlike that with which the honorable member 
 has edified us. For myself, Sir, I shall not rake among 
 the rubbish of by-gone times to see what I can find, or 
 whether I cannot find something by which I can fix a 
 
 35 blot on the escutcheon of any State, any party, or any
 
 Reply to Hayne. 215 
 
 part of the country. General Washington's administra- 
 tion was steadily and zealously maintained, as we all 
 know, by Ne\r England. It was violently opposed else- 
 where. We know in what quarter he had the most 
 earnest, constant, and persevering support, in all his 5 
 great and leading measures. We know where his pri- 
 vate and personal character was held in the highest 
 degree of attachment and veneration ; and we know, 
 too, where his measures were opposed, his services 
 slighted, and his character vilified. We know, or we 10 
 might know, if we turned to the journals,, who expressed 
 respect, gratitude, and regret when he retired from the 
 chief magistracy, and who refused to express either 
 respect, gratitude, or regret. I shall not open those 
 journals. Publications more abusive or scurrilous never 15 
 saw the light than were sent forth against Washington 
 and all his leading measures from presses south of New 
 England. But I shall not look them up. I employ no 
 scavengers ; no one is in attendance on me, tendering such 
 means of retaliation; and, if there were, with an ass's 20 
 load of them, with a bulk as huge as that which the 
 gentleman himself has produced, I would not touch one 
 of them. I see enough of the violence of our own times 
 to be no way anxious to rescue from forgetfulness the 
 extravagances of times past. 25 
 
 Besides, what is all this to the present purpose ? It 
 has nothing to do with the public lands, in regard to 
 which the attack was begun ; and it has nothing to do 
 with those sentiments and opinions which I have thought 
 tend to disunion, and all of which the honorable mem- 30 
 ber seems to have adopted himself, and undertaken to 
 defend. New England has, at times, so argues the 
 gentleman, held opinions as dangerous as those which 
 he now holds. Suppose this were so; why should he 
 therefore abuse New England ? Qf he finds himself 35
 
 216 Webster. 
 
 countenanced by acts of hers, how is it that, while he 
 relies on these acts, he covers, or seeks to cover, their 
 authors with reproach ?) But, Sir, if, in the course of 
 forty years, there have been undue effervescences of 
 3 party in New England, has the same thing happened 
 nowhere else ? ... If the gentleman wishes to increase 
 his stores of party abuse and frothy violence, if he has 
 a determined proclivity to such pursuits, there are 
 treasures of that sort south of the Potomac, much to 
 
 10 his taste, yet untouched. . . . The gentleman's purvey- 
 ors have only catered for him among the productions 
 of one side. I certainly shall not supply the deficiency 
 by furnishing samples of the other. I leave to him, 
 and to them, the whole concern. It is enough for me 
 
 15 to say, that if, in any part of this their grateful occu- 
 pation, if, in all their researches, they find anything 
 in the history of Massachusetts or New England, or 
 in the proceedings of any legislative or other public 
 body, disloyal to the Union, speaking slightly of its 
 
 20 value, proposing to break it up, or recommending non- 
 intercourse with neighboring States, on account of differ- 
 ence of political opinion, then, Sir, I give them all 
 up to the honorable gentleman's unrestrained rebuke ; 
 expecting, however, that he will extend his buffetings in 
 
 25 like manner to all similar proceedings, wherever else 
 found. . . . 
 
 Mr. President, in carrying his warfare, such as it is, 
 into New England, the honorable gentleman all along 
 professes to be acting on the defensive. He chooses to 
 
 30 consider me as having assailed South Carolina, and in- 
 sists that he comes forth only as her champion, and in 
 her defence. Sir, I do not admit that I made any attack 
 whatever on South Carolina. Nothing like it. The hon- 
 orable member, in his first speech, expressed opinions, in 
 
 35 regard to revenue and some other topics, which I heard
 
 Reply to Hayne. 217 
 
 both with pain and with surprise. I told the gentleman 
 I was aware that such sentiments were entertained out 
 of the government, but had not expected to find them 
 advanced in it ; that I knew there were persons in the 
 South who speak of our Union with indifference or doubt, 5 
 taking pains to magnify its evils, and to say nothing of 
 its benefits ; that the honorable member himself, I was 
 sure, could never be one of these ; and I regretted the 
 expression of such opinions as he had avowed, because I 
 thought their obvious tendency was to encourage feelings 10 
 of disrespect to the Union, and to impair its strength. 
 This, Sir, is the sum and substance of all I said on the 
 subject. And this constitutes the attack, which called 
 on the chivalry of the gentleman, in his own opinion, to 
 harry us with such a foray among the party pamphlets 15 
 and party proceedings of Massachusetts ! If he means 
 that I spoke with dissatisfaction or disrespect of the 
 ebullitions of individuals in South Carolina, it is true. 
 But if he means that I had assailed the character of the 
 State, her honor, or patriotism, that I reflected on her 20 
 history or her conduct, he has not the slightest ground 
 for any such assumption. I did not even refer, 1 think, 
 in my observations, to any collection of individuals. I 
 said nothing of the recent conventions. I spoke in the 
 most guarded and careful manner, and only expressed 25 
 my regret for the publication of opinions which I pre- 
 sumed the honorable member disapproved as much as 
 myself. In this, it seems, I was mistaken. I do not 
 remember that the gentleman has disclaimed any senti- 
 ment, or any opinion, of a supposed anti-union tendency, 30 
 which on all or any of the recent occasions has been ex- 
 pressed. The whole drift of his speech has been rather 
 to prove that, in divers times and manners, sentiments 
 equally liable to my objection have been avowed in New 
 England. And one would suppose that his object, in 35
 
 218 Webster. 
 
 this reference to Massachusetts, was to find a precedent 
 to justify proceedings in the South, were it not for the 
 reproach and contumely with which he labors, all along, 
 to load these his own chosen precedents. By way of 
 
 5 defending South Carolina from what he chooses to think 
 an attack on her, he first quotes the example of Massa- 
 chusetts, and then denounces that example in good set 
 terms. This twofold purpose, not very consistent, one 
 would think, with itself, was exhibited more than once 
 
 10 in the course of his speech. He referred, for instance, 
 to the Hartford Convention. Did he do this for author- 
 ity, or for a topic of reproach ? Apparently for both ; 
 for he told us that he should find no fault with the mere 
 fact of holding such a convention, and considering and 
 
 15 discussing such questions as he supposes were then and 
 there discussed ; but what rendered it obnoxious was its 
 being held at the time, and under the circumstances of 
 the country then existing. We were in a war, he said, 
 and the country needed all our aid ; the hand of govern- 
 
 20 ment required to be strengthened, not weakened ; and 
 patriotism should have postponed such proceedings to 
 another day. The thing itself, then, is a precedent ; the 
 time and manner of it only, a subject of censure. Now, 
 Sir, I go much further on this point than the honorable 
 
 25 member. Supposing, as the gentleman seems to do, that 
 the Hartford Convention assembled for any such purpose 
 as breaking up the Union, because they thought uncon- 
 stitutional laws had been passed, or to consult on that 
 subject, or to calculate the value of the Union ; supposing 
 
 30 this to be their purpose, or any part of it, then, I say, 
 the meeting itself was disloyal, and was obnoxious to 
 censure, whether held in time of peace or time of war, 
 or under whatever circumstances. The material question 
 is the object. Is dissolution the object ? If it be, ex- 
 
 35 ternal circumstances may make it a more or less aggra-
 
 Reply to Hayne. 219 
 
 vated case, but cannot affect the principle. I do not hold, 
 therefore, Sir, that the Hartford Convention was pardon- 
 able, even to the extent of the gentleman's admission, if 
 its objects were really such as have been imputed to it. 
 Sir, there never was a time, under any degree of excite- 5 
 ment, in which the Hartford Convention, or any other 
 convention, could have maintained itself one moment in 
 New England, if assembled for any such purpose as the 
 gentleman says would have been an allowable purpose. 
 (To hold conventions to decide constitutional law ! to try 10 
 the binding validity of statutes, by votes in a convention ! 
 Sir, the Hartford Convention, I presume, would not desire 
 that the honorable gentleman should be their defender or 
 advocate, if he puts their case upon such untenable and 
 extravagant groundsJ 15 
 
 Then, Sir, the gentleman has no fault to find with 
 these recently promulgated South Carolina opinions. 
 And certainly he need have none; for his own senti- 
 ments as now advanced, and advanced on reflection, 
 as far as I have been able to comprehend them, go the 20 
 full length of all these opinions. I propose, Sir, to say 
 something on these, and to consider how far they are 
 just and constitutional. Before doing that, however, 
 let me observe that the eulogium pronounced by the 
 honorable gentleman on the character of the State of 25 
 South Carolina, for Revolutionary and other merits, 
 meets my hearty concurrence. I shall not acknowledge 
 that the honorable member goes before me in regard for 
 whatever of distinguished talent, or distinguished char- 
 acter, South Carolina has produced. I claim part of the 30 
 honor, I partake in the pride, of her great names. I 
 claim them for countrymen, one and all. The Laurenses, 
 the Rutledges, the Pinckneys, the Sumters, the Marions, 
 Americans all, whose fame is no more to be hemmed in 
 by State lines than their talents and patriotism were 36
 
 220 Webster. 
 
 capable of being circumscribed within the same narrow 
 limits. In their day and generation they served and 
 honored the country, and the whole country ; and their 
 renown is of the treasures of the whole country. Him 
 
 5 whose honored 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 ex- 
 
 10 hibit 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 
 
 15 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 neighborhood ; when I 
 refuse, for any such cause, or for any cause, the homage 
 
 20 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, 
 
 25 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 
 
 30 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 
 
 35 stood round the administration of Washington, and felt
 
 Reply to Hayne. 221 
 
 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. 5 
 
 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, 10 
 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 15 
 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 ambi- 
 tion shall hawk at and tear it ; if folly and madness, if 20 
 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 vigor it may 25 
 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 ojjm^lef^^aftd- on the very spot of 
 its origin. ^^-A^/v * 
 
 There yet Remains to be performed, Mr. President, by 30 
 far the most grave and important duty which I feel to 
 be devolved on me by this occasion. It is to state, and 
 to defend, what I conceive to be the true principles of 
 the Constitution under which we are here assembled. I 
 might well have desired that so weighty a task should 35
 
 222 Webster. 
 
 have fallen into other and abler hands. I could have 
 wished that it should have been executed by those whose 
 character and experience give weight and influence to 
 their opinions such as cannot possibly belong to mine. 
 5 But, Sir, I have met the occasion, not sought it ; and I 
 shall proceed to state my own sentiments, without chal- 
 lenging for them any particular regard, with studied 
 plainness, and as much precision as possible. 
 
 I understand the honorable gentleman from South 
 
 10 Carolina to maintain that it is a right of the State 
 
 legislatures to interfere, whenever in their judgment 
 
 this government transcends its constitutional limits, and 
 
 to arrest the operation of its laws. 
 
 I understand him to maintain this right, as a right 
 , 15 existing under the Constitution) not as a right to over- 
 throw it on the ground of extreme necessity, such as 
 would justify violent revolution. 
 
 I understand him to maintain an authority, on the 
 part of the States, thus to interfere for the purpose of 
 
 ;20 correcting the exercise of power by the general govern- 
 ment, of checking it, and of compelling it to conform to 
 their opinion of the extent of its powers. 
 
 I understand him to maintain that the ultimate power 
 of judging of the constitutional extent of its own author- 
 
 425 ity is not lodged exclusively in the general government, 
 or any branch of it ; but that, on the contrary, the 
 States may lawfully decide for themselves, and each 
 State for itself, whether, in a given case, the act of the 
 general government transcends its power. 
 
 30 I understand him to insist that, if the exigency 
 of the case, in the opinion of any State government, 
 require it, such State government may, by its own 
 sovereign authority, annul an act of the general gov- 
 ernment which it deems plainly and palpably unconsti- 
 
 35 tutional.
 
 Reply to Hayne. 223 
 
 This is the sum of what I understand from him to be 
 the South Carolina doctrine and the doctrine which he 
 maintains. I propose to consider it, and compare it with 
 the Constitution. Allow me to say, as a preliminary 
 remark, that I call this the South Carolina doctrine only 6 
 because the gentleman himself has so denominated it. I 
 do not feel at liberty to say that South Carolina, as a 
 State, has ever advanced these sentiments. I hope she 
 has not, and never may. That a great majority of her 
 people are opposed to the tariff laws, is doubtless true. 10 
 That a majority, somewhat less than that just men- 
 tioned, conscientiously believe these laws unconstitu- 
 tional, may probably also be true. But, that any 
 majority holds to the right of direct State interfer- 
 ence at State discretion, the right of nullifying acts of 15 
 Congress by acts of State legislation, is more than I 
 know, and what I shall be slow to believe. 
 
 That there are individuals besides the honorable gen- 
 tleman who do maintain these opinions, is quite certain. 
 I recollect the recent expression of a sentiment which 20 
 circumstances attending its utterance and publication 
 justify us in supposing was not unpremeditated, "The 
 sovereignty of the State never to be controlled, con- 
 strued, or decided on, but by her own feelings of honor- 
 able justice." 25 
 
 [Mr. Hayne here rose and said that, for the purpose of being 
 clearly understood, he would state that his proposition was in the 
 words of the Virginia resolution as follows : 
 
 " That this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, 
 that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting 30 
 from the compact to which the States are parties, as limited by the 
 plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that com- 
 pact, as no farther valid than they are authorized by the grants 
 enumerated in that compact ; and that, in case of a deliberate, 
 palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by 35 
 the said compact, the States who are parties thereto have the
 
 224 Webster. 
 
 right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the prog- 
 ress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits 
 the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them."] 
 
 Mr. Webster resumed : 
 
 5 I am quite aware, Mr. President, of the existence of 
 the resolution which the gentleman read, and has now 
 repeated, and that he relies on it as his authority. I 
 know the source, too, from which it is understood to have 
 proceeded. I need not say that I have much respect for 
 
 10 the constitutional opinions of Mr. Madison ; they would 
 weigh greatly with me always. But, before the authority 
 of his opinion be vouched for the gentleman's proposi- 
 tion, it will be proper to consider what is the fair inter- 
 pretation of that resolution to which Mr. Madison is 
 
 15 understood to have given his sanction. As the gentle- 
 man construes it, it is an authority for him. Possibly he 
 may not have adopted the right construction. That reso- 
 lution declares, that, in the case of the dangerous exercise 
 of powers not granted by the general government, the 
 
 20 States may interpose to arrest the progress of the evil. 
 But how interpose, and what does this declaration pur- 
 port ? Does it mean no more than that there may be 
 extreme cases, in which the people, in any mode of 
 assembling, may resist usurpation and relieve them- 
 
 25 selves from a tyrannical government ? No one will 
 deny this. Such resistance is not only acknowledged 
 to be just in America, but in England also. Blackstone 
 admits as much, in the theory, and practice, too, of the 
 English constitution. We, Sir, who oppose the Carolina 
 
 30 doctrine, do not deny that the people may, if they 
 choose, throw off any government, when it becomes 
 oppressive and intolerable, and erect a better in its 
 stead. We all know that civil institutions are estab- 
 lished for the public benefit, and that when they cease
 
 Reply to Hayne. 225 
 
 to answer the ends of their existence they may be 
 changed. But I do not understand the doctrine now 
 contended for to be that which, for the sake of dis- 
 tinction, we may call the right of revolution. I under- 
 stand the gentleman to maintain that, without revolution, 5 
 without civil commotion, without rebellion, a remedy for 
 supposed abuse and transgression of the powers of the 
 general government lies in a direct appeal to the inter- 
 ference of the State governments. 
 
 [Mr. Hayne here rose and said : He did not contend for the 10 
 mere right of revolution, but for the right of constitutional resist- 
 ance. What he maintained was, that, in case of a plain, pal- 
 pable violation of the Constitution by the general government, 
 a State may interpose; and that this interposition is constitu- 
 tional.] 15 
 
 Mr. Webster resumed : 
 
 So, Sir, I understood the gentleman, and am happy to 
 find that I did not misunderstand him. What he con- 
 tends for is, that it is constitutional to interrupt the 
 administration of the Constitution itself, in the hands 20 
 of those who are chosen and sworn to administer it, by 
 the direct interference, in form of law, of the States, in 
 virtue of their sovereign capacity. The inherent right 
 in the people to reform their government I do not deny ; 
 and they have another right, and that is, to resist uncon- 25 
 stitutional laws, without overturning the government. j 
 It is no doctrine of mine that unconstitutional laws y 
 bind the people. / The great question is,|^hose preroga- -^ 
 tive is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconsti- 
 tutionally of the laws ? 1 On that the main debate 30 
 hinges. The proposition that, in case of a supposed 
 violation of the Constitution by Congress, the States 
 have a constitutional right to interfere and annul the 
 law of Congress, is the proposition of the gentleman.
 
 226 Webster. 
 
 I do not admit it. If the gentleman had intended no 
 more than to assert the right of revolution for jiistifiable 
 cause, he would have said only what all agree to. But I 
 cannot conceive that there can be a middle course, be- 
 
 5 tween submission to the laws, when regularly pro- 
 nounced constitutional, on the one hand, and open 
 resistance, which is revolution or rebellion, on the other. 
 I say, the right of a State to annul a law of Congress 
 cannot be maintained but on the ground of the inalien- 
 10 able right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, 
 upon the ground of revolution. I admit that there is 
 an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution and 
 in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to 
 when a revolution is to be justified. But I do not admit 
 
 15 that, under the Constitution and in conformity with it, 
 there is any mode in which a State government, as a 
 member of the Union, can interfere and stop the prog- 
 ress of the general government, by force of her own 
 
 \ tiaws, under any circumstances whatever. 
 ""20 This leads us to inquire into the origin of this gov- 
 ernment and the source of its power. Whose agent is 
 it ? Is it the creature of tlje State legislatures, or the 
 creature of the people ? (jf the government of the 
 United States be the agent of the State governments, 
 
 25 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 honorable gentleman contends 
 
 30 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 
 
 35 is the servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different
 
 Reply to Hayne. 227 
 
 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 Consti- 
 tution, the people's government, made for the people, 5 
 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 10 
 their sovereignty is not affected by this supreme law. 
 But the State legislatures, as political bodies, how- 
 ever sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the peo- 
 ple. So far as the people have given power to the 
 general government, so far the grant is unquestiona- 15 
 bly 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 govern- 
 ment and the State governments derive their authority 
 from the same source. Neither can, in relation to the 20 
 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 25 
 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 con- 
 trolled. I do not contend that it is, or ought to be, 30 
 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 fol- 
 low his own feelings is under no legal control. Now, 35
 
 228 Webster. 
 
 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, doubt- 
 less, who wish they had been left without restraint ; but 
 5 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, 
 
 10 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 honorable jus- 
 
 15 tice." Such an opinion, therefore, is in defiance of the 
 plainest provisions of the Constitution. 
 
 There are other proceedings of public bodies which 
 have already been alluded to, and to which I refer again, 
 for the purpose of ascertaining more fully what is the 
 
 20 length and breadth of that doctrine denominated the 
 Carolina doctrine, which the honorable member has now 
 stood up on this floor to maintain. In one of them I 
 find it resolved, that " the tariff of 1828, and every other 
 tariff designed to promote one branch of industry at the 
 
 25 expense of others, is contrary to the meaning and inten- 
 tion of the federal compact ; and such a dangerous, 
 palpable, and deliberate usurpation of power, by a 
 determined majority, wielding the general government 
 beyond the limits of its delegated powers, as calls upon 
 
 30 States which compose the suffering minority, in their 
 sovereign capacity, to exercise the powers which, as 
 sovereigns, necessarily devolve upon them when their 
 compact is violated." 
 
 Observe, Sir, that this resolution holds the tariff of 
 
 35 1828, and every other tariff designed to promote one
 
 Reply to Hayne. 229 
 
 branch of industry at the expense of another, to be 
 such a dangerous, palpable, and deliberate usurpation 
 of power, as calls upon the States, in their sovereign 
 capacity, to interfere by their own authority. This 
 denunciation, Mr. President, you will please to observe, 5 
 includes our old tariff of 1816, as well as all others ; 
 because that was established to promote the interest 
 of the manufacturers of cotton, to the manifest and 
 admitted injury of the Calcutta cotton trade. Observe, 
 again, that all the qualifications are here rehearsed and 10 
 charged upon the tariff, which are necessary to bring the 
 case within the gentleman's proposition. The tariff is a 
 usurpation : it is a dangerous usurpation ; it is a palpa- 
 ble usurpation ; it is a deliberate usurpation. It is such 
 a usurpation, therefore, as calls upon the States to exer- 15 
 cise their right of interference. Here is a case, then, 
 within the gentleman's principles, and all his qualifica- 
 tions of his principles. It is a case for action. The 
 Constitution is plainly, dangerously, palpably, and delib- 
 erately violated ; and the States must interpose their 20 
 own authority to arrest the law. Let us suppose the 
 State of South Carolina to express this same opinion by 
 the voice of her legislature. That would be very impos- 
 ing ; but what then ? Is the voice of one State conclu- 
 sive ? It so happens that, at the very moment when 25 
 South Carolina resolves that the tariff laws are unconsti- 
 tutional, Pennsylvania and Kentucky resolve exactly the 
 reverse. They hold those laws to be both highly proper 
 and strictly constitutional. And now, Sir, how does the 
 honorable member propose to deal with this case ? How 30 
 does he relieve us from this difficulty, upon any principle 
 of his ? His construction gets us into it ; how does he 
 propose to get us out ? 
 
 In Carolina, the tariff is a palpable, deliberate usurpa- 
 tion ; Carolina, therefore, may nullify it, and refuse to 3*
 
 230 Webster. 
 
 pay the duties. In Pennsylvania, it is both clearly con- 
 stitutional and highly expedient; and there the duties 
 are to be paid. And yet we live under a government of 
 uniform laws, and under a Constitution, too, which con- 
 
 5 tains an express provision, as it happens, that all duties 
 shall be equal in all the States. Does not this approach 
 absurdity ? 
 
 If there be no power to settle such questions, inde- 
 pendent of either of the States, is not the whole Union 
 
 10 a rope of sand ? Are we not thrown back again, pre- 
 cisely, upon the old Confederation ? 
 
 It is too plain to be argued. Four and twenty inter- 
 preters of constitutional law, each with a power to 
 decide for itself, and none with authority to bind any- 
 
 15 body else, and this constitutional law the only bond of 
 their union ! What is such a state of things but a 
 mere connection during pleasure, or, to use the phrase- 
 ology of the times, during feeling ? And that feeling, 
 too, not the feeling of the people, who established the 
 
 20 Constitution, but the feeling of the State govern- 
 ments. 
 
 In another of the South Carolina addresses, having 
 premised that the crisis requires "all the concentrated 
 energy of passion," an attitude of open resistance to the 
 
 25 laws of the Union is advised. Open resistance to the 
 laws, then, is the constitutional remedy, the conservative 
 power of the State, which the South Carolina doctrines 
 teach for the redress of political evils, real or imaginary. 
 And its authors further say that, appealing with con- 
 
 30 fidence to the Constitution itself, to justify their opinions, 
 they cannot consent to try their accuracy by the courts 
 of justice. In one sense, indeed, Sir, this is assuming an 
 attitude of open resistance in favor of liberty. But what 
 sort of liberty ? The liberty of establishing their own 
 
 35 opinions, in defiance of the opinions of all others ; the
 
 Reply to Hayne. 231 
 
 liberty of judging and of deciding exclusively them- 
 selves, in a matter in which others have as much right 
 to judge and decide as they ; the liberty of placing their 
 own opinions above the judgment of all others, above the 
 laws, and above the Constitution. This is their liberty, 5 
 and this is the fair result of the proposition contended 
 for by the honorable gentleman. Or it may be more 
 properly said, it is identical with it, rather than a result 
 from it. ... 
 
 And now, Sir, what I have first to say on this subject 10 
 is, that at no time, and under no circumstances, has New 
 England, or any State in New England, or any respect- 
 able body of persons in New England, or any public man 
 of standing in New England, put forth such a doctrine 
 as this Carolina doctrine. 15 
 
 The gentleman has found no case, he can find none, to 
 support his own opinions by New England authority. 
 New England has studied the Constitution in other 
 schools, and under other teachers. She looks upon it 
 with other regards, and deems more highly and rever- 20 
 ently both of its just authority and its utility and excel- 
 lence. The history of her legislative proceedings may 
 be traced. The ephemeral effusions of temporary bodies, 
 called together by the excitement of the occasion, may 
 be hunted up ; they have been hunted up. The opinions 25 
 and votes of her public men, in and out of Congress, may 
 be explored. It will all be in vain. The Carolina doc- 
 trine can derive from her neither countenance nor support. 
 She rejects it now ; she always did reject it ; and, till 
 she loses her senses, she always will reject it. The hon- 30 
 orable member has referred to expressions on the subject 
 of the embargo law, made in this place by an honorable 
 and venerable gentleman [Mr. Hillhouse], now favoring 
 us with his presence. He quotes that distinguished Sen- 
 ator as saying that, in his judgment, the embargo law 36
 
 232 Webster. 
 
 was unconstitutional, and that, therefore, in his opinion, 
 the people were not bound to obey it. That, Sir, is per- 
 fectly constitutional language. An unconstitutional law 
 is not binding ; but then it does not rest with a resolu- 
 5 tion or a law of a State legislature to decide whether an 
 act of Congress be, or be not, constitutional. An uncon- 
 stitutional act of Congress would not bind the people of 
 this District;, although they have no legislature to inter- 
 fere in their behalf ; and, on the other hand, a constitu- 
 
 10 tional law of Congress does bind the citizens of every 
 State, although all their legislatures should undertake to 
 annul it by act or resolution. The venerable Connecticut 
 Senator is a constitutional lawyer of sound principles 
 and enlarged knowledge ; a statesman practised and ex- 
 
 15 perienced, bred in the company of Washington, and hold- 
 ing just views upon the nature of our governments. He 
 believed the embargo unconstitutional, and so did others ; 
 but what then ? Who did he suppose was to decide that 
 question ? The State legislatures ? Certainly not. No 
 
 20 such sentiment ever escaped his lips. 
 
 Let us follow up, Sir, this New England opposition to 
 the embargo laws ; let us trace it till we discern the 
 principle which controlled and governed New England 
 throughout the whole course of that opposition. We 
 
 25 shall then see what similarity there is between the New 
 England school of constitutional opinions, and this mod- 
 ern Carolina school. . . . No doubt, Sir, a great ma- 
 jority of the people of New England conscientiously 
 believed the embargo law of 1807 unconstitutional; as 
 
 30 conscientiously, certainly, as the people of South Carolina 
 hold that opinion of the tariff. They reasoned thus : 
 Congress has power to regulate commerce ; but here is 
 a law, they said, stopping all commerce, and stopping it 
 indefinitely. The law is perpetual; that is, it is not 
 
 35 limited in point of time, and must, of course, continue
 
 Reply to Hayne. 233 
 
 ^s 
 
 until it shall be repealed by some other law. It is as 
 perpetual, therefore, as the law against treason or mur- 
 der. Now, is this regulating commerce, or destroying it ? 
 Is it guiding, controlling, giving the rule to commerce, 
 as a subsisting thing ; or is it putting an end to it alto- 5 
 gether ? Nothing is more certain than that a majority 
 in New England deemed this law a violation of the Con- 
 stitution. The very case required by the gentleman to 
 justify State interference had then arisen. Massachu- 
 setts believed this law to be " a deliberate, palpable, and 10 
 dangerous exercise of a power not granted by the Con- 
 stitution." Deliberate it was, for it was long continued ; 
 palpable, she thought it, as no words in the Constitution 
 gave the power, and only a construction, in her opinion 
 most violent, raised it ; dangerous it was, since it threat- 15 
 ened utter ruin to her most important interests. Here, 
 then, was a Carolina case. How did Massachusetts deal 
 with it ? It was, as she thought, a plain, manifest, pal- 
 pable violation of the Constitution, and it brought ruin 
 to her doors. Thousands of families, and hundreds of 20 
 thousands of individuals, were beggared by it. While 
 she saw and felt all this, she saw and felt, also, that, as 
 a measure of national policy, it was perfectly futile ; that 
 the country was no way benefited by that which caused 
 so much individual distress ; that it was efficient only 25 
 for the production of evil, and all that evil inflicted on 
 ourselves. In such a case, under such circumstances, 
 how did Massachusetts demean herself ? Sir, she remon- 
 strated, she memorialized, she addressed herself to the 
 general government, not exactly " with the concentrated 30 
 energy of passion," but with her own strong sense, and 
 the energy of sober conviction. But she did not inter- 
 pose the arm of her own power to arrest the law, and 
 break the embargo. Far from it. Her principles bound 
 her to two things ; and she followed her principles, lead 35
 
 234 Webster. 
 
 where they might. First, to submit to every consti- 
 tutional law of Congress; and, secondly, i| the constitu- 
 tional validity of the law be doubted, to refer that 
 question to the decision of the proper tribunals. The 
 5 first principle is vain and ineffectual without the second. 
 A majority of us in New England believed the embargo 
 law unconstitutional; but the great question was, and 
 always will be, in such cases, Who is to decide this ? 
 Who is to judge between the people and the government ? 
 
 10 And, Sir, it is quite plain that the Constitution of the 
 United States confers on the government itself, to be 
 exercised by its appropriate department, and under its 
 own responsibility to the people, this power of deciding 
 ultimately and conclusively upon the just extent of its 
 
 15 own authority. If this had not been done, we should 
 not have advanced a single step beyond the old Confed- 
 eration. 
 
 Being fully of opinion that the embargo law was un- 
 constitutional, the people of New England were yet 
 
 20 equally clear in the opinion it was a matter they did 
 [not] doubt upon that the question, after all, must be 
 decided by the judicial tribunals of the United States. 
 Before those tribunals, therefore, they brought the ques- 
 tion. Under the provisions of the law they had given 
 
 25 bonds to millions in amount, and which were alleged 
 to be forfeited. They suffered the bonds to be sued, and 
 thus raised the question. In the old-fashioned way of 
 settling disputes they went to law. The case came to 
 hearing and solemn argument ; and he who espoused 
 
 30 their cause, and stood up for them against the validity 
 of the embargo act, was none other than that great man 
 of whom the gentleman has made honorable mention, 
 Samuel Dexter. He was then, Sir, in the fullness of his 
 knowledge and the maturity of his strength. He had 
 
 35 retired from long and distinguished public service here,
 
 Reply to ffayne. 235 
 
 to the renewed pursuit of professional duties ; carrying 
 with him all that enlargement and expansion, all the 
 new strength and force, which an acquaintance with the 
 more general subjects discussed in the national councils 
 is capable of adding to professional attainment in a mind 5 
 of true greatness and comprehension. He was a lawyer, 
 and he was also a statesman. . . . He put into his 
 effort his whole heart, as well as all the powers of his 
 understanding; for he had avowed in the most public 
 manner his entire concurrence with his neighbors on 10 
 the point in dispute. He argued the cause ; it was lost, 
 and New England submitted. The established tribunals 
 pronounced the law constitutional,- and New England 
 acquiesced. Now, Sir, is not this the exact opposite of 
 the doctrine of the gentleman from South Carolina ? 15 
 According to him, instead of referring to the judicial 
 tribunals, we should have broken up the embargo by 
 laws of our own ; we should have repealed it, quoad 
 New England ; for we had a strong, palpable, and op- 
 pressive case. Sir, we believed the embargo unconstitu- 20 
 tional; but still that was matter of opinion, and who 
 was to decide it ? We thought it a clear case ; but, 
 nevertheless, we did not take the law into our own 
 hands, because we did not wish to bring about a revolu- 
 tion, nor to break up the Union ; for I maintain that, 25 
 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 30 
 attempt to save it from the character of unlawful resist- 
 ance, 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 pal- 35
 
 236 Webster. 
 
 pable 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 anything ? 
 
 ir, 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 ad- 
 vances. South Carolina sees unconstitutionality in the 
 
 10 tariff ; she sees oppression there also, and she sees dan- 
 ger. 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 
 
 15 now not only sees, but resolves, that the tariff is palpably 
 unconstitutional, oppressive, and dangerous ; but Penn- 
 sylvania, not to be behind her neighbors, and equally 
 willing to strengthen her own faith by a confident 
 
 L^-^viv, . ^V *it4, f/^+-< ' 
 
 asseveration, resolves also, and gives to every warm 
 
 20 affirmative of South Carolina, a plain, downright, Penn- 
 sylvania negative. South Carolina, to show the strength 
 and unity of her opinion, brings her assembly to a unan- 
 imity within seven voices ; Pennsylvania, not to be out- 
 done in this respect more than in others, reduces her 
 
 25 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 
 
 30 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 
 
 33 on in his speech. He quoted Mr. Madison's resolutions
 
 Reply to Hayne. 237 
 
 to prove that a State may interfere, in a case of deliber- 
 ate, palpable* and dangerous exercise of a power not 
 granted. The honorable 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, 5 
 interfere by its own law. Now it so happens, neverthe- 
 less, 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 c*,se, they re- 10 
 ject 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. 15 
 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 gov- 
 ernment, and are thrust back again to the days of the 
 Confederation. . 20 
 
 Let me here say, Sir, that if tiae gentleman's doctrine 
 had been received 'and acted upon in New England, in 
 the times of the embargo and non-intercourse, we should 
 probably not now have been here. The government 
 would very likely have gone to pieces, and crumbled into 25 
 dust. No stronger case can ever arise than existed 
 under those laws ; no States can ever entertain a clearer 
 conviction than the New England States then entertained ; 
 and if they had been under the influence of that heresy 
 of opinion, as I must call it, which the honorable mem- 30 
 ber espouses, this Union would, in all probability, have 
 been scattered to the four winds. I ask the gentleman, 
 therefore, to apply his principles to that case ; I ask him 
 to come forth, and declare whether, in his opinion, the 
 New England States would have been justified in inter- 35
 
 238 Webster. 
 
 fering to break up the embargo system under the con- 
 scientious opinions which they held upon it*? Had they 
 a right to annul that law ? Does he admit or deny ? 
 If that which is thought palpably unconstitutional in 
 
 5 South Carolina justifies that State in arresting the prog- 
 ress of the law, tell me whether that which was thought 
 palpably unconstitutional also in Massachusetts would 
 have justified her in doing the same thing. Sir, I deny 
 the whole doctrine. It has not a foot of ground in the 
 
 10 Constitution to stand on. No public man of reputation 
 ever advanced it in Massachusetts, in the warmest times, 
 or could maintain himself upon it there at any time. 
 
 I wish now, Sir, to make a remark upon the Virginia 
 resolutions of 1798. I cannot undertake to say how 
 
 15 these resolutions were understood by those who passed 
 them. Their language is not a little indefinite. In the 
 case of the exercise by Congress of a dangerous power 
 not granted to them, the resolutions assert the right, on 
 the part of the State, to interfere and arrest the progress 
 
 20 of the evil. This is susceptible of more than one inter- 
 pretation. It may mean no more than that the States 
 may interfere by complaint and remonstrance.; or by pro- 
 posing to the people an alteration of the federal Consti- 
 tution. This would all be quite unobjectionable. Or it 
 
 25 may be that no more is meant than to_assert_lilie_general 
 right of revolution, as against all governments, in cases 
 of intolerable oppression. This no one doubts, and this, 
 in my opinion, is all that he who framed the resolutions 
 could have meant by it ; for I shall not readily believe 
 
 30 that he was ever of opinion that a State, under the Con- 
 stitution and in conformity with it, could, upon the 
 ground of her own opinion of its unconstitutionality, 
 however clear and palpable she might think the case, 
 annul a law of Congress so far as it should operate on 
 
 35 herself, by her own legislative power.
 
 Reply to Hayne. 239 
 
 I must now beg to ask, Sir, whence is this supposed 
 right of the States derived? Where do they find the 
 power to interfere with the laws of the Union?, Sir, 
 the opinion which the honorable gentleman maintains 
 is a notion founded in a total misapprehension, in my 5 
 judgment, of the origin of this government, and of the 
 foundation on which it stands. I hold it to be a popular 
 government, erected by the people ; those who adminis- 
 ter it, responsible to the people; and itself capable of 
 being amended and modified, just as the people may 10 
 choose it should be. It is as popular, just as truly 
 emanating from the people, as the State governments. 
 It is created for one purpose ; the State governments for 
 another. It has its own powers ; they have theirs. 
 There is no more authority with them to arrest the 15 
 operation of a law of Congress, than with Congress to 
 arrest the operation of their laws. We are here to 
 administer a Constitution emanating immediately from 
 the people, and trusted by them to our administration. 
 It is not the creature of the State governments. It is of 20 
 no moment to the argument, that certain acts of the 
 State legislatures are necessary to fill our seats in this 
 body. That is not one of their original State powers, a 
 part of the sovereignty of the State. It is a duty which 
 the people, by the Constitution itself, have imposed on 25 
 the State legislatures, and which they might have left to 
 be performed elsewhere, if they had seen fit/jSo they 
 have left the choice of President with electors ; but all 
 this does not affect the proposition that this whole gov- 
 ernment, President, Senate, and House of Representa- 30 
 tives, is a popular government. It leaves it still all its 
 popular character. The governor of a State (in some of 
 the States) is chosen, not directly by the people, but by 
 those who are chosen by the people for the purpose of 
 performing, among other duties, that of electing a gov- 35
 
 240 Webster. 
 
 ernor. Is the government of the State, on that account, 
 not a popular government? This government, Sir, is 
 the independent offspring of the popular will. It is 
 not the creature of State legislatures ; nay more, if the 
 
 5 whole truth must be told, the people brought it into 
 existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, 
 for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing cer- 
 tain salutary restraints on State sovereignties. The 
 States cannot now make war ; they cannot contract 
 
 10 alliances ; they cannot make, each for itself, separate 
 regulations of commerce ; they cannot lay imposts ; they 
 cannot coin money. If this Constitution, Sir, be the 
 creature of State legislatures, it must be admitted that 
 it has obtained a strange control over the volitions of 
 
 15 its creators. 
 
 /"The people, then, Sir, erected this government. They 
 gave it a Constitution, and in that Constitution they have 
 enumerated the powers which they bestow on it. They 
 have made it a limited government. They have defined 
 
 20 its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of 
 such powers as are granted ; and all others, they declare, 
 are reserved to the States or the people. But, Sir, they 
 have not stopped here. If they had, they would have 
 accomplished but half their work. No definition can be 
 
 25 so clear as to avoid possibility of doubt ; no limitation so 
 precise as to exclude all uncertainty. Who, then, shall 
 construe this grant of the people ? Who shall interpret 
 their will, where it may be supposed they have left it 
 doubtful ? With whom do they repose this ultimate 
 
 30 right of deciding on the poAvers of the government ? 
 Sir, they have settled all this in the fullest manner. 
 They have left it with the government itself in its 
 appropriate branches. Sir, the very chief end, the main 
 design for which the whole Constitution was framed and 
 
 35 adopted, was to establish a government that should not
 
 Reply to Hayne. 241 
 
 be obliged to act through State agency, or depend on 
 State opinion and State discretion. The people had had 
 quite enough of that kind of government under the Con- 
 federation. Under that system the legal action, the 
 application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively 5 
 to the States. Congress could only recommend ; their 
 acts were not of binding force, till the States had adopted 
 and sanctioned them. Are we in that condition still? 
 Are we yet at the mercy of State discretion and State 
 construction ? Sir, if we are, then vain will be our at- 10 
 tempt to maintain the Constitution under which we 
 sit. 
 
 But, Sir, the people have wisely provided in the Con- 
 stitution itself a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for 
 settling questions of constitutional law. There are in 15 
 the Constitution grants of powers to Congress, and 
 restrictions on these powers. There are, also, prohibi- 
 tions on the States. Some authority must, therefore, 
 necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix 
 and ascertain the interpretation of these grants, restric- 20 
 tions, and prohibitions. The Constitution has itself 
 pointed out, ordained, and established that authority. 
 How has it accomplished this great and essential end ? 
 By declaring, Sir, that " thfr Constitution and the laws of 
 the United States made in pursuance thereof shall be the 25 
 supreme law of the land, anything in the, Constitution or 
 laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding" 
 
 This, Sir, was the first great step. By this the su- 
 premacy of the Constitution and laws of the United 
 States is declared. The people so will it. No State law 30 
 is to be valid which comes in conflict with the Constitu- 
 tion or any law of the United States passed in pursuance 
 of it. But who shall decide this question of interfer- 
 ence ? To whom lies the last appeal ? This, Sir, the 
 Constitution itself decides also, by declaring, " that the 35
 
 242 Webster. 
 
 judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the 
 Constitution and laws of the United States." These two 
 provisions cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, 
 the keystone of the arch! With these, it is a govern- 
 
 5 ment ; without them it is a confederation. In pursuance 
 of these clear and express provisions, Congress estab- 
 lished at its very first session, in the judicial act, a mode 
 for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing all 
 questions of constitutional power to the final decision of 
 
 10 the Supreme Court. It then, Sir, became a government. 
 It then had the means of self-protection; and, but for 
 this, it would, in all probability, have been now among 
 things which are past. Having constituted the govern- 
 ment and declared its powers, the people have further 
 
 15 said that, since somebody must decide on the extent of 
 these powers, the government shall itself decide ; subject 
 always, like other popular governments, to its responsi- 
 bility to the people. And now, Sir, I repeat, how is it 
 that a State legislature acquires any power to interfere ? 
 
 20 Who, or what, gives them the right to say to the peo- 
 ple, " We, who are your agents and servants for one pur- 
 pose, will undertake to decide that your other agents and 
 servants, appointed by you for another purpose, have 
 transcended the authority you gave them ! " The reply 
 
 25 would be, I think, not impertinent, " Who made you 
 a judge over another's servants ? To their own masters 
 they stand or fall." 
 
 Sir, I deny this power of State legislatures altogether. 
 It cannot stand the test of examination. Gentlemen 
 
 30 may say that, in an extreme case, a State government 
 might protect the people from intolerable oppression. 
 Sir, in such a case, the people might protect themselves 
 without the aid of the State governments. Such a case 
 warrants revolution. It must make, when it comes, a 
 
 35 law for itself. A nullifying act of a State legislature
 
 Reply to Hayne. 243 
 
 cannot alter the case, nor make resistance any more law- 
 ful. In maintaining these sentiments, Sir, I am but as- 
 serting the rights of the people. I state what they have 
 declared, and insist on their right to declare it. They 
 have chosen to repose this power in the general govern- 5 
 ment, and I think it my duty to support it, like other 
 constitutional powers. 
 
 For myself, Sir, I do not admit the jurisdiction of 
 South Carolina, or any other State, to prescribe my con- 
 stitutional duty ; or to settle, between me and the people, ic 
 the validity of laws of Congress, for which I have voted. 
 I decline her umpirage. I have not sworn to support 
 the Constitution according to her construction of its 
 clauses. I have not stipulated, by my oath of office or 
 otherwise, to come under any responsibility, except to 15 
 the people and those whom they have appointed to pass 
 upon the question, whether laws supported by my votes 
 conform to the Constitution of the country. And, Sir, 
 if we look to the general nature of the case, could any- 
 thing have been more preposterous than to make a gov- 20 
 eminent for the whole Union, and yet leave its powers 
 subject, not to one interpretation, but to thirteen, or 
 twenty-four interpretations ? Instead of one tribunal, 
 established by all, responsible to all, with power to decide 
 for all, shall constitutional questions be left to four and 25 
 twenty popular bodies, each at liberty to decide for it- 
 self, and none bound to respect the decisions of others ; 
 and each at liberty, too, to give a new construction on 
 every new election of its own members ? Would any- 
 thing, with such a principle in it, or rather with such a 30 
 destitution of all principle, be fit to be called a govern- 
 ment ? No, Sir ; it should not be denominated a Consti- 
 tution. It should be called, rather, a collection of topics 
 for everlasting controversy ; heads of debate for a dispu- 
 tatious people. It would not be a government. It would 35
 
 244 Webster. 
 
 not be adequate to any practical good, nor fit for any 
 country to live under. To avoid all possibility of being 
 misunderstood, allow me to repeat again, in the fullest- 
 manner, that I claim no powers for the government by 
 
 5 forced or unfair construction. I admit that it is a gov- 
 ernment of strictly limited powers, of enumerated, spe- 
 cified, and particularized powers ; and that whatsoever is 
 not granted is withheld. But, notwithstanding all this, 
 and however the grant of powers may be expressed, its 
 
 10 limit and extent may yet, in some cases, admit of doubt ; 
 and the general government would be good for nothing, 
 it would be incapable of long existing, if some mode had 
 not been provided in which those doubts, as they should 
 arise, might be peaceably, but authoritatively solved. 
 
 15 And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gen- 
 tleman'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. And I wish to be informed how this State inter- 
 
 20 ference is to be put in practice without violence, blood- 
 shed, and rebellion. 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 prob- 
 ably shall not), she will then apply to the case the rem- 
 
 25 edy of her doctrine. She will, we must suppose, pass a 
 law of her legislature declaring the several acts of Con- 
 gress, 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 
 
 30 the collector at Charleston is collecting the duties im- 
 posed 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 under- 
 take their rescue ; the marshal with his posse will come 
 
 35 to the collector's aid ; and here the contest begins. The
 
 Reply to Hayne. 245 
 
 militia of the State will be called out to sustain the nul- 
 lifying act. They will march, Sir, under a very gallant 
 leader ; for I believe the honorable member himself com- 
 mands the militia of that part of the State. He will 
 raise the nullifying act on his standard, and spread it 5 
 out as his banner. It will have a preamble, setting 
 forth that the tariff laws are palpable, deliberate, and 
 dangerous violations of the Constitution. He will pro- 
 ceed, with this banner flying, to the custom-house in 
 
 Charleston. 10 
 
 " 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 15 
 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 bid- 
 ding. He would show him the law of Congress, the 
 treasury instruction, and his own oath of office. He 20 
 would say he should perform his duty, come what 
 come might. 
 
 Here would ensue a pause, for they say that a certain 
 stillness precedes the tempest. The trumpeter would 
 hold his breath a while, and before all this military 26 
 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 30 
 well as for his bravery as a soldier. They know he has 
 read Blackstone and the Constitution, as well as Turenne 
 and Vauban. They would ask him, therefore, some- 
 thing concerning their rights in this matter. They 
 would inquire whether it was not somewhat dangerous 35
 
 246 Webster. 
 
 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 
 5 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 
 
 10 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 
 
 is 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 
 
 20 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 us rather 
 an awkward business, this dying without touching the 
 
 25 ground ! After all, that is a sort of hemp tax, worse 
 than any part of the tariff." 
 
 Mr. President, the honorable 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 
 
 30 must cut it with his sword. He must say to his fol- 
 lowers, " Defend yourselves with your bayonets ! " And 
 this is war, civil war. 
 
 Direct collision, therefore, between force and force is 
 the unavoidable result of that remedy for the revision of 
 
 35 unconstitutional laws which the gentleman contends for.
 
 Reply to Hayne. 247 
 
 It must happen in the very first case to which it is 
 applied. Is not this the plain result ? To resist by 
 force the execution of a law, generally is treason. Can 
 the courts of the United States take notice of the indul- 
 gence of a State to commit treason ? The common say- 5 
 ing, that a State cannot commit treason herself, is 
 nothing to the purpose. Can she authorize others to 
 do it ? If John Fries had produced an act of Pennsyl- 
 vania annulling the law of Congress, would it have 
 helped his case ? Talk about it as we will, these doc- 10 
 trines go the length of revolution. They are incompati- 
 ble with any peaceable administration of the government. 
 They lead directly to disunion and civil commotion ; and 
 therefore it is, that at their commencement, when they 
 are first found to be maintained by respectable men, and 15 
 in a tangible form, I enter my public protest against 
 them all. 
 
 The honorable gentleman argues that, if this govern- 
 ment be the sole judge of the extent of its own powers, 
 whether that right of judging be in Congress or the 20 
 Supreme Court, it equally subverts State sovereignty. 
 This the gentleman sees, or thinks he sees, although he 
 cannot perceive how the right of judging in this matter, 
 if left to the exercise of State legislatures, has any ten- 
 dency to subvert the government of the Union. The 25 
 gentleman's opinion may be that the right ought not to 
 have been lodged with the general government ; he may 
 like better such a Constitution as we should have under 
 the right of State interference ; but I ask him to meet 
 me on the plain matter of fact. I ask him to meet me 30 
 on the Constitution itself. I ask him if the power is not 
 found there clearly and visibly found there ? 
 
 But, Sir, what is this danger, and what the grounds 
 of it ? Let it be remembered that the Constitution of 
 the United States is not unalterable. It is to continue 35
 
 248 Webster. 
 
 in its present form no longer than the people who estab- 
 lished it shall choose to continue it. If they shall become 
 convinced that they have made an injudicious or inexpe- 
 dient partition and distribution of power between the 
 5 State governments and the general government, they can 
 alter that distribution at will. 
 
 If anything be found in the national Constitution, 
 either by original provision or subsequent interpretation, 
 which ought not to be in it, the people know how to get 
 10 rid of it. If any construction unacceptable to them be 
 established, so as to become practically a part of the 
 Constitution, they will amend it at their own sovereign 
 pleasure. But while the people choose to maintain it as 
 it is, while they are satisfied with it, and refuse to change 
 15 it, who has given, or who can give, to the State legisla- 
 tures a right to alter it either by interference, construc- 
 tion, or otherwise ? Gentlemen do not seem to recollect 
 that the people have any power to do anything for them- 
 selves. They imagine there is no safety for them, any 
 20 longer than they are under the close guardianship of 
 the State legislatures. Sir, the people have not trusted 
 their safety, in regard to the general Constitution, to 
 these hands. They have required other security, and 
 taken other bonds. They have chosen to trust them- 
 25 selves, first, to the plain words of the instrument, and to 
 such construction as the government itself, in doubt- 
 ful cases, should put on its own powers, under its oaths 
 of office, and subject to its responsibility to them ; just 
 as the people of a State trust their own State govern- 
 so ments with a similar power. Secondly, they have re- 
 posed their trust in the efficacy of frequent elections, 
 and in their own power to remove their own servants 
 and agents whenever they see cause. Thirdly, they 
 have reposed trust in the judicial power, which, in 
 35 order that it might be trustworthy, they have made as
 
 Reply to Hayne. 249 
 
 respectable, as disinterested, and as independent as was 
 practicable. Fourthly, they have seen fit to rely, in case 
 of necessity or high expediency, on their known and 
 admitted power to alter or amend the Constitution peace- 
 ably and quietly, whenever experience shall point out 5 
 defects or imperfections. And, finally, the people of the 
 United States have at no time, in no way, directly or 
 indirectly, authorized any State legislature to construe 
 or interpret their high instrument of government ; much 
 less to interfere by their own power to arrest its course 10 
 and operation. 
 
 If, Sir, the people in these respects had done otherwise 
 than they have done, their Constitution could neither have 
 been preserved, nor would it have been worth preserving. 
 And if its plain provisions shall now be disregarded, and 15 
 these new doctrines interpolated in it, it will become as 
 feeble and helpless a being as its enemies, whether early 
 or more recent, could possibly desire. It will exist in 
 every State but as a poor dependant on State permission. 
 It must borrow leave to be ; and will be no longer than 20 
 State pleasure, or State discretion, sees fit to grant the 
 indulgence and to prolong its poor existence. 
 
 But, Sir, although there are fears, there are hopes also. 
 The people have preserved this, their own chosen Con- 
 stitution, for forty years, and have seen their happi- 25 
 ness, prosperity, and renown grow with its growth, and 
 strengthen with its strength. They are now, generally, 
 strongly attached to it. Overthrown by direct assault, it 
 cannot be ; evaded, undermined, nullified, it will not be, 
 if we, and those who shall succeed us here as agents 30 
 and representatives of the people, shall conscientiously 
 and vigilantly discharge the two great branches of 
 our public trust, faithfully to preserve, and wisely to 
 administer it. 
 
 Mr. President, I have thus stated the reasons of my 35
 
 250 Webster. 
 
 dissent to the doctrines which have been advanced and 
 maintained. I am conscious of having detained you and 
 the Senate much too long. I was drawn into the debate 
 with no previous deliberation such as is suited to the 
 
 5 discussion of so grave and important a subject. But it 
 is a subject of which my heart is full, and I have not 
 been willing to suppress the utterance of its spontaneous 
 sentiments. I cannot, even now, persuade myself to 
 relinquish it without expressing once more my deep 
 
 10 conviction that, since it respects nothing less than the 
 Union of the States, it is of most vital and essential 
 importance to the public happiness. I profess, Sir, in 
 my career hitherto to have kept steadily in view the 
 prosperity and honor of the whole country, and the pres- 
 
 15 ervation of our Federal Union. It is to that Union we 
 owe our safety at home, and our consideration and dig- 
 nity abroad. It is to that Union that we are chiefly 
 indebted for whatever makes us most proud of our coun- 
 try. That Union we reached only by the discipline of 
 
 20 our virtues in the severe school of adversity. It had its 
 origin in the necessities of disordered finance, prostrate 
 commerce, and ruined credit. Under its benign influ- 
 ences, these great interests immediately awoke as from 
 the dead, and sprang forth with newness of life. Every 
 
 25 year of its duration has teemed with fresh proofs of its 
 utility and its blessings ; and although our territory has 
 stretched out wider and wider, and our population spread 
 farther and farther, they have not outrun its protection 
 or its benefits. It has been to us all a copious fountain 
 
 30 of national, social, and personal happiness. 
 
 I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the 
 Union to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess 
 behind. I have not coolly weighed the chances of pre- 
 serving liberty, when the bonds that unite us together 
 
 35 shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself
 
 Reply to Hayne. 
 
 to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, 
 with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss 
 below ; nor could I regard him as a safe counsellor in the 
 affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be 
 mainly bent on considering, not how the Union should 5 
 be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condi- 
 tion of the people when it should be broken up and 
 destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, excit- 
 ing, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and 
 our children. Beyond that, I seek not to penetrate the 10 
 veil. God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain 
 may not rise J God grant that on my vision never may 
 be opened what lies behind ! When my eyes shall be 
 turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, 
 may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored 15 
 fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissev- 
 ered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil 
 feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood ! Let 
 their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the 
 gorgeous ensign of the Republic, now known and hon- 20 
 ored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its 
 arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not 
 a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured ; 
 bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as 
 " What is all this worth ? " nor those other words of 25 
 delusion and folly, " Liberty first, and Union after- 
 wards ; " but everywhere, spread all over in characters of 
 living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float 
 over the sea and over the land and in every wind under 
 the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every 30 
 true American heart, Liberty and Union, now and for- 
 ever, one and inseparable ! 

 
 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER, statesman and orator, was born in Salis- 
 bury, N. H., Jan. 18, 1782. His father, a sturdy frontiersman, 
 soldier, farmer, member of the legislature, and county judge, was, 
 after the manner of his kind, always struggling with poverty, and 
 handicapped with a sense of the deficiencies of his early educa- 
 tion. He purposed that Daniel, his youngest son, a delicate lad 
 and little fitted for the heavy tasks of a farmer's life, should not 
 be so handicapped. Through struggles and self-denial by no 
 means rare in such cases, a way was made to send him to college. 
 After an exceedingly brief and fragmentary preparation, he en- 
 tered Dartmouth College in 1797, and was graduated in 1801, at 
 the age of nineteen. He turned at once to the study of law, 
 supporting himself meanwhile, and assisting his elder brother in 
 college, by copying, teaching, and other miscellaneous labors. 
 Admitted to the bar in 1805, his remarkable abilities soon gained 
 him recognition, and the field of political life opened before him. 
 In 1813 he took his seat in Congress. From this time on his life 
 is writ so large on the pages of his country's history as to need 
 little further notice here. The greatest service he rendered his 
 country was doubtless as champion of the national idea, and the 
 speech before us is probably his most memorable utterance upon 
 that subject. Honors and fame came thick upon him all save 
 the honor he had come to covet most, the Presidency. After 
 thirty-nine years of public life he died Oct. 24, 1852. 
 
 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 The circumstances which called forth this speech may be thus 
 summarized : For a long time before 1830 there had been a grave 
 divergence of conviction among American statesmen as to the 
 
 359
 
 360 Notes. 
 
 real nature of the union between the various States, and as to the 
 limitations thereby imposed upon the powers of the separate 
 States, as well as the limitations exercised by them upon the 
 powers of the general government. One side held that the United 
 States was one nation ; that the general government was charged 
 with the conduct of all matters which concern the nation as a 
 whole ; that laws made by the representatives of all in the general 
 government are binding upon all alike ; and that such laws may 
 be peacefully set aside in one of two ways only, either by having 
 them declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, or by hav- 
 ing them repealed by the power which made them. The other 
 side held the several States to be sovereign powers, very much as 
 if they were separate nations, united, it is true, for certain com- 
 mon purposes, and delegating certain limited powers to a common 
 organization ; but reserving each to itself alone the decision as to 
 whether measures enacted by the general government should be 
 operative within its territory. This was the doctrine of State- 
 Rights ; and its application in nullifying laws passed by Congress 
 was at this time much talked about, and was soon to be tried by 
 South Carolina with this very Robert Y. Hayne as Governor. 
 These views were not confined to separate sections of country ; 
 but the National idea found its strongest support in New Eng- 
 land, while the State-Rights idea with its corollary, nullification 
 was warmly espoused in the South. 
 
 At the end of December, 1829, Mr. Foote of Connecticut intro- 
 duced into the Senate the innocent resolution, printed on page 
 185 of this volume, calling for an inquiry into the sales and sur- 
 veys of the public lands. Nothing special was elicited by the 
 fitful discussion which ensued until, on January 19, Mr. Robert 
 Y. Hayne of South Carolina made a speech, " accusing the New 
 England States of a selfish design to retard the growth of the 
 Western States a design originating the tariff ; " and appealing 
 to a natural sympathy, which, as he affirmed, existed between the 
 Western and the Southern States, and which should unite them 
 against the policy and the assumption of New England. Engaged 
 as Mr. Webster was at this time in the Supreme Court, he had 
 not followed the discussion, and had no thought of taking part
 
 Webster: In Reply to Hayne. 361 
 
 in it at all until by chance he heard this speech of Mr. Hayne. 
 Its tone and spirit were so unusual that he felt it must be an- 
 swered. He rose to speak as soon as Mr. Hayne sat down, but 
 an adjournment of the Senate postponed his reply. Next day he 
 delivered his first speech in this debate, defending New England 
 against the charges brought against her, and upholding the doc- 
 trine of a national union and a national policy, as opposed to the 
 divisive tendencies and sectional jealousies to which appeal had 
 been made. The discussion took on at once a range and an im- 
 portance far transcending the scope of the simple resolution 
 which started it. The champions of State-Rights and Nullifica- 
 tion, together with those who insisted that slavery should be 
 provided for in the settlement of new territories, rallied to the 
 charge. " There seemed to be," said an observer, " a preconcerted 
 action on the part of Southern members to break down the 
 Northern men, and to destroy their influence by a premeditated 
 assault." John C. Calhoun, the foremost of them all, was presid- 
 ing officer of the Senate, and could take no part in the debate ; 
 but his place in the lists was made good by Thomas H. Benton 
 and Robert Y. Hayne. The speech of the latter, in particular, by 
 its eloquence and acuteness, as well as by the relentlessness of its 
 personal attack, produced a profound impression. By many per- 
 sons it was felt to be unanswerable. At its close the Senate 
 adjourned. 
 
 This second speech of Mr. Hayne was the one to which Mr. 
 Webster was next morning to reply. The previous strokes in 
 this battle-royal had roused public interest to the highest pitch. 
 For two or three days strangers had been pouring into Washing- 
 ton to witness the outcome. When the Senate met, all the usual 
 restrictions had proved of no avail against the mighty throng that 
 gathered there. "Its chamber galleries, floor, and even lobbies 
 was filled to its utmost capacity. The very stairways were dark 
 with men who clung to one another like bees in a swarm." The 
 ordinary ceremonial of opening the session of the Senate was 
 impatiently set aside. In the presence of this vast and anxious 
 audience, without the least sign of tremor or perturbation, Mr. 
 Webster rose and began his second speech upon the resolution of 
 Mr. Foote.
 
 362 Notes. 
 
 TEXTUAL NOTES. 
 
 PAGE 186, 15. elsewhere in the Supreme Court, where Mr. 
 Webster had a very important suit pending. 
 
 PAGE 188, 9. The friend was the famous Thomas H. Benton, 
 who had twice taken an important part in the debate. His first 
 speech referred to in the next paragraph Mr. Webster did 
 not hear. 
 
 19 ff. The notes used by Mr. Webster on these two occasions 
 have been preserved. They are of the briefest possible nature, 
 covering in the one case only three, and in the other case only 
 five loosely written letter-sheets. But the great questions involved 
 had been thought out by him many months before, as he himself 
 has told us. 
 
 PAGE 192, 8. the Missouri question, referring to the bitter 
 strife which arose over the admission of Missouri as a slave-state. 
 Cf . any good History of the United States s.v. The Missouri Com- 
 promise. The same question in its later aspects is discussed by 
 Mr. Calhoun in his speech printed in this volume. 
 
 PAGE 194, 9. In determining the number of Representatives 
 in Congress to which any State was entitled, the number of free 
 persons in it was increased by three-fifths of the whole number of 
 slaves it contained. Thus, in proportion to the number of voters, 
 the slave-states had a much larger representation than the free- 
 states. Cf. the Constitution, Article I., section 2. 
 
 PAGE 202, 15, 16. Because the terms "neutral" and "belli- 
 gerent " are applicable only to a state of war, and lose all their 
 significance in peace. 
 
 PAGE 204, 12. Teucro duce " with Teucer as my leader " 
 from a famous line in Horace. The " Teucer " thus referred to 
 was none other than Calhoun himself, the " Mr. President " whom 
 he here addresses, now the leader of the extreme Southern wing, 
 presumably even in its opposition to the national policy of inter- 
 nal improvements which Mr. Webster learned from him in 1816. 
 Few things in the speech are more adroit than the manner in 
 which Mr. Webster here parries and returns with a home-thrust 
 the double charge of personal inconsistency and of sectional greed
 
 Webster : In Reply to Hayne. 363 
 
 and selfishness. By the pleasantry of this sally upon Mr. Calhoun 
 he withdraws the attention of the audience from his immediate 
 antagonist, and fixes it upon the real leader and champion of 
 these extreme views. With unfailing good humor he piles up 
 opinions and votes of " leading and distinguished gentlemen from 
 South Carolina " in maintenance of the very policy his opponent 
 has condemned. He recalls how gladly he followed the star of 
 South Carolina until it changed its position. The Vice-Presi- 
 dent at last winces. He interrupts the speech with a question 
 (p. 209) which may be taken either as an indignant denial of any 
 change in his views, or as a " bluff." Nothing could have better 
 served Mr. Webster's purpose. Having " drawn " Mr. Calhoun, 
 he graciously accepts his remark in the former sense, and then 
 recalls that there are other gentlemen, too, from South Carolina 
 who are not implacably opposed to internal improvements at the 
 general cost if only they are to be carried out in South 
 Carolina. 
 
 PAGE 205, 21. causa causans the causing cause, the school- 
 men's phrase to distinguish the essential or efficient cause from 
 various co-operating or conditioning causes. 
 
 PAGE 207, 4. et noscitur a sociis " and he is [was] recognized 
 by his companions." But Mr. Webster seems to give it a pun- 
 ning turn not borne out by the Latin and he was known by 
 the company he kept." 
 
 PAGE 207, 13. For the party designations of those days, see 
 note to page 298. 
 
 PAGE 212, 21. had proved a legal settlement in South 
 Carolina was found to be regularly domiciled there. 
 
 PAGE 218, 11. The Hartford Convention of 1814, a conven- 
 tion of New England delegates opposed to the policy of the 
 government, and especially to the war with England. It sat 
 with closed doors, and was at the time strongly suspected of 
 treasonable designs. No proof, however, of this charge has ever 
 been produced, and it is now generally discredited. Cf. U. S. 
 History. 
 
 PAGE 220, 12-15. The peculiar turn of expression here is a 
 reminiscence of the closing lines of Dryden's Alexander's Feast.
 
 364 Notes. 
 
 The student who has his English classics in mind cannot fail to 
 notice the frequent occurrence of such echoes in this speech, and 
 the striking originality of their application. 
 
 PAGE 221, 29. With this eloquent passage Mr. Webster leaves 
 the personal and sectional matters that had been forced upon him, 
 for what was much more congenial to his nature the discussion 
 of principles. All through this defence, in fact, has been apparent 
 his strong feeling that personalities have no claim whatever upon 
 public attention, save as they stand for ideas and principles. Mr. 
 Webster's manly dignity and his unruffled temper in repelling a 
 caustic attack have made this section a classic of its kind. It 
 may be profitably compared with Burke 's defence of himself in his 
 Speech at Bristol. 
 
 PAGE 223, 29. The citation is from the famous resolutions of 
 the Virginia Legislature, passed December, 1798, to express its 
 opposition to the Alien and Sedition Laws recently enacted by 
 Congress. The language was understood to be Mr. Madison's. 
 
 PAGE 227, 5, 6. One finds here, and farther on (p. 239), the 
 first drafts of Lincoln's immortal phrase " government of the 
 people, by the people, and for the people." See p. 312. 
 
 PAGE 234, 21. The not does not appear in any edition con- 
 sulted, but seems imperatively demanded by the sense. Its 
 omission was doubtless due to a slip of the printer and the proof- 
 reader. 
 
 PAGE 246, 7. John Fries was a turbulent fellow who, in 1799, 
 headed some Pennsylvanians in riotous resistance to the laws of 
 the United States and in the rescue of prisoners. He was twice 
 tried for treason, twice convicted and sentenced to be hanged, 
 but was finally pardoned by the President. 
 
 " At the conclusion of Mr. Webster's argument, General Hayne 
 rose to reply. Although one of his friends proposed an adjourn- 
 ment, he declined to avail himself of it, and addressed the Senate 
 for a short time on the constitutional question. Mr. Webster 
 then rose again, restated both sides of the controversy with great 
 force, giving General Hayne the benefit of that clear setting forth
 
 Webster: In Reply to Hayne. 365 
 
 of the position of an adversary, which none could do better than 
 Mr. Webster, and which none could doubt was the strongest 
 method of stating it ; and then following it, step by step, with the 
 appropriate answer. This was the reduction of the whole con- 
 troversy to the severest forms of logic." Life of Daniel Webster, 
 by GEORGE T. CURTIS, vol. i. p. 359. 
 
 Two years passed, and again Mr. Webster faced this same ques- 
 tion in the Senate, but this time with an antagonist more formid- 
 able than Mr. Hayne. Mr. Calhoun's speech on that occasion 
 has been considered as perhaps the ablest effort of his life. It 
 became the scripture from which almost a whole generation of the 
 young men of the South learned those lessons which afterward 
 carried them into the War of Secession. Mr. Webster's reply 
 was this time more closely reasoned, more compact and powerful 
 as an intellectual effort than the earlier speech, though less inter- 
 esting, it may be, to the general reader. But the great debate of 
 1830 seems to have exhausted the arguments upon this subject. 
 Whatever was said later upon either side seemed to be but re- 
 statement or re-arrangement of what was there laid down. One 
 thing only remained, and that was to bring the opposing views to 
 the arbitrament of actual conflict. That crisis seemed actually to 
 have come, even while this second debate was going on. South 
 Carolina, with Mr. Hayne as Governor, undertook to put her 
 views in practice, and armed herself to stop the collection of 
 United States duties in her ports. President Jackson sternly 
 prepared to enforce the laws with all the powers the goverment 
 could wield. But the storm that threatened did not break then 
 after all. The matter was compromised, and South Carolina took 
 back her Act of Nullification. The final issue came a generation . 
 later, and on those battle-fields where brave men freely gave their 
 lives " that government of the people, by the people, and for the 
 people should not perish from the earth."
 
 I ENGLISH. 
 
 The Academy Series of English Classics. 
 
 THE works selected for this series are such as have gained a 
 conspicuous and enduring place in literature ; nothing is ad- 
 mitted either trivial in character or ephemeral in interest. Each 
 volume is edited by a teacher of reputation, whose name is a 
 guaranty of sound and judicious annotation. It is the aim of the 
 Notes to furnish assistance only where it is absolutely needed, 
 and, in general, to permit the author to be his own interpreter. 
 
 All the essays and speeches in the series (excepting Webster's 
 Reply to Hayne) are printed without abridgment. The Plays 
 of Shakespeare are expurgated only where necessary for school 
 use. 
 
 Addison. De Coverley Papers. Edited by Samuel Thurber. Boards, 25 
 
 cents ; cloth, 35 cents. 
 Arnold. Essays in Criticism. Edited by Susan S. Sheridan. Boards only, 
 
 20 cents. 
 Rugby Chapel. Edited by Prof. L. D. Syle. (In Four English Poem.'. 
 
 Boards only, 20 cents.) 
 
 Sohrab and Rustum. Edited by George A. Watrous. (In Three Nar- 
 rative Poems. Cloth only, 30 cents.) 
 Burke. Conciliation with the Colonies. Edited by Prof. C. B. Bradley. 
 
 Boards, 20 cents ; cloth, 30 cents. 
 
 Burns. Selections. Edited by Lois G. Hufford. Cloth only, 35 cents. 
 Byron. The Prisoner of Chilian. Edited by Prof. L. D. Syle. (In Four 
 
 English Poems. Boards only, 20 cents.) 
 Carlyle. Essay on Burns and Essay on Boswell's Johnson. Edited by 
 
 Henry W. Boynton. Boards only, each, 20 cents. 
 Coleridge. The Ancient Mariner. Edited by George A. Watrous. (In 
 
 Three Narrative Poems. Cloth only, 30 cents.) 
 
 Cowper. John Gilpin's Ride. Edited by Prof. L. D. Syle. (In Four Eng- 
 lish Poems. Boards only, 20 cents.) 
 George Eliot. Silas Marner. Edited by W. Patterson Atkinson. Cloth 
 
 only, 40 cents. 
 Emerson. Select Essays and Poems. Edited by Eva March Tappan. Cloth 
 
 only, 30 cents. 
 Goldsmith. The Vicar of Wakefield. Edited by R. Adelaide Witham, 
 
 Cloth only, 40 cents. 
 The Traveller and The Deserted Village. Edited by George A. Watroui 
 
 (In Selected Poems, Cloth only, 30 cents.)
 
 ENGLISH. 1 
 
 The Academy Series of English Classics. 
 
 Continued. 
 
 Gray. Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard and The Progress of Poesy. 
 Edited by George A. Watrous. (In Selected Poems. Cloth only, 30 
 cents.) 
 Irving. Selections from the Sketch Book. Edited by Elmer E. Wentworth. 
 
 Cloth only, 35 cents. 
 Lowell. Selections. The Vision of Sir Launfal and other Poems. Edited 
 
 by Dr. F. R. Lane. Cloth only, 30 cents. 
 Macaulay. Essay on 
 
 Addison. Clive. Johnson. 
 
 Chatham. Hastings. Milton. 
 
 Edited by Samuel Thurber. Boards only, each, 20 cents. 
 Essays on Milton and Addison. Edited by Samuel Thurber. One vol-. 
 
 ume, cloth only, 35 cents. 
 Milton. Paradise Lost, Books I. and 71. Edited by Henry W. Boynton. 
 
 Boards, 20 cents ; cloth, 30 cents. 
 
 Minor Poems. Edited by Samuel Thurber. Cloth only, 30 cents. 
 Pope. The Rape of the Lock. Edited by Prof. L. D. Syle. (In Four Eng- 
 lish Poems. Boards only, 20 cents.) 
 An Essay on Criticism. Edited by George A. Watrous. (In Selected 
 
 Poems. Cloth only, 30 cents.) 
 Scott. The Lady of the Lake. Edited by G. B. Aiton. Cloth only, 40 cts. 
 
 Marmion. Edited by Mary E. Adams. Cloth only, 40 cents. 
 Shakespeare. Julius Casar. As You Like It. 
 
 Macbeth. The Tempest. 
 
 Merchant of Venice. 
 
 Edited by Samuel Thurber. Each, boards, 20 cents; cloth, 30 cents. 
 
 Hamlet. Edited by Samuel Thurber. Boards, 25 cents ; cloth, 35 cents. 
 
 Tennyson. Enoch Arden. Edited by George A. Watrous. (In Three 
 
 Narrative Poems. Cloth only, 30 cents.) 
 
 Idylls of the King. Edited by H. W. Boynton. Cloth, 30 cents. 
 Webster. Reply to Hayne. Edited by C. B. Bradley. Boards, 20 cents. 
 
 Syle. Four English Poems : The Rape of the Lock, John Gilpin's Ride, 
 
 The Prisoner of Chilian, and Rugby Chapel. Edited by Prof. L. D. 
 
 Syle. Boards only, 20 cents. 
 Watrous. Three Narrative Poems : The Ancient Mariner, Sohrab and 
 
 Rustum, and Enoch Arden. Edited by G. A. Watrous. Cloth, 30 cents. 
 Watrous. Selected Poems from Pope, Gray, and Goldsmith. Edited by 
 
 George A. Watrous. Cloth only, 30 cents.
 
 12 ENGLISH. 
 
 Orations and Arguments. 
 
 Edited by Professor C. B. BRADLEY, University of California. 121110, 
 cloth, 385 pages. Price, $1.00. 
 
 The following speeches are contained in the book : 
 BURKE : WEBSTER : 
 
 On Conciliation with the Col- The Reply to Hayne. 
 
 onies, and Speech before the M ACAULAY: 
 Electors at Bristol. Qn the Reform Bm Q{ 
 
 CHATHAM : CALHOUN 
 
 On American Affairs. ' O n the Slavery Question. 
 
 ERSKINE: SEWARD- 
 
 In the Stockdale Case. On ^ Irre ^ Conflict . 
 
 LINCOLN : 
 
 The Gettysburg Address. 
 
 IN making this selection, the test applied to each speech was 
 that it should be in itself memorable, attaining its distinc- 
 tion through the essential qualities of nobility and force' of ideas, 
 and that it should be, in topic, so related to the great thoughts, 
 memories, or problems of our own time as to have for us still an 
 inherent and vital interest. 
 
 The speeches thus chosen have been printed from the best 
 available texts, without change, save that the spelling has been 
 made uniform throughout, and that three of the speeches 
 those of Webster, Calhoun, and Seward have been shortened 
 somewhat by the omission of matters of merely temporal or local 
 interest. The omitted portions have been summarized for the 
 reader, whenever they bear upon the main argument. 
 
 The Notes aim to furnish the reader with whatever help is 
 necessary to the proper appreciation of the speeches ; to avoid 
 bewildering him with mere subtleties and display of erudition ; 
 and to encourage in him habits of self-help and familiarity witi? 
 sources of information. 
 
 A special feature of this part of the work is a sketch of the 
 English Constitution and Government, intended as a general 
 introduction to the English speeches. 
 
 The collection includes material enough to permit of a varied 
 election for the use of successive classes in the schools.
 
 "Si 
 ft 
 
 Form 1 
 f 
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed. 
 
 
 / &. 
 
 LOAN 
 
 '7 
 
 
 
 ;&^^ 

 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 A 000040689 2 
 
 A PLEA^fl DO NOT REMOVE 
 THiS BOOK CARD-! 
 
 University Research Library 
 
 ro 
 
 t~A 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 TO