Congressional Giants. J. Michael Martinez

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ on a public campaign to defend the Union.⁶⁵

      Webster’s most famous defense of the Union occurred in January 1830. South Carolina Senator Robert Y. Hayne, a proxy for Jackson’s vice president, John C. Calhoun, stood in the well of the Senate during a debate over land policy and charged that northern men, in advocating high tariff rates, were deliberately harming western as well as southern interests. In his response, Webster objected to Hayne’s characterization of the North as antagonistic to the South, although Webster simultaneously denigrated the institution of slavery. The New Englander also blanched at the southerner’s state rights defense.

      Hayne offered a rebuttal to Webster, reiterating his belief that the North in general, and Webster in particular, were “making war upon the unoffending South.” In his reply, Hayne suggested that nullification was an acceptable remedy for states aggrieved by oppressive federal policies. He refused to recognize the value of the Union as paramount, contending that the states were superior to the federal government.⁶⁶

      This challenge could not go unanswered. In his second reply to Hayne, delivered on January 26, Webster argued that the U.S. Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, had established “we, the people” as the ultimate source of authority, not the states. The doctrine of nullification threatened to undermine the delicate balance of power established in the Constitution, thereby effectively returning the nation to the Articles of Confederation, the first national constitution, or to anarchy. The Articles had failed precisely because that document had allowed the states to be sovereign, producing a government that was too weak and ineffective to rule the nation, or its citizens. For Webster, nullification was logically and practically unworkable as well as tantamount to treason.

      Hayne and his southern brethren had argued that they prized liberty over Union, and they would fight to preserve their right to live free of an obdurate government. Webster believed that liberty and Union must coexist. He also sought to snuff out the talk of possible Civil War. As he concluded his second reply to Hayne, Webster uttered some of the most famous words ever spoken in the Senate:

      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 fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, 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 honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, not a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as “What is all this worth?” nor those other words of delusion and folly, “Liberty first and Union afterwards”; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all it sample 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 true American heart—Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!⁶⁷

      The speech, widely reprinted and circulated, enhanced Webster’s reputation as one of the greatest orators of his age. It also transformed him into an iconic figure, a Union man extraordinaire. In years to come, he would support President Jackson’s promise to dispatch troops to quell domestic disturbances and ensure that the southern states would not secede from the Union. He worked with both Jackson and Clay, figures he frequently opposed, in ending the secession crisis of 1833.⁶⁸

      Webster remained opposed to much of Jackson’s agenda, however, especially the president’s plan to destroy the Second National Bank of the United States. Ever the populist, Jackson distrusted the bank, believing that the consolidation of financial power into the institution harmed small farmers who depended on the whims of the bankers to finance their operations. Webster thought that the benefits of a strong banking system far outweighed the risks of consolidated power, and he spoke out on this point repeatedly. Jackson won that fight, although a national recession in 1837 indicated that Webster’s argument probably was correct if judged on economic grounds.⁶⁹

      Webster’s growing stature made him a contender for presidential politics during the 1830s. He sought the nomination of a new political party, the Whigs, in 1836, but he could not garner sufficient support. He might have become a vice presidential candidate under General William Henry Harrison in 1840, but instead he accepted a position as secretary of state after Harrison won the election. The new president died after only a month in office, leaving his vice president, John Tyler, in the executive office. Webster continued on as secretary of state, despite numerous differences with Tyler.⁷⁰

      Tyler, a former Democrat, had been added as a vice presidential candidate to balance the Harrison ticket, but he was not ideologically aligned with the Whig platform. It soon became apparent that he would resist measures the Whigs had expected Harrison to champion. In particular, Tyler shared Andrew Jackson’s mistrust of the Bank of the United States. Webster thought a compromise bill could be enacted to reestablish the bank but limit the scope of its power. He urged his former congressional colleagues to pass such a bill, but they refused. Tyler vetoed the strong bill presented to him, which outraged the president’s cabinet. Except for Webster, cabinet members resigned en masse to protest the veto. Tyler appreciated Webster’s show of support, especially since the two men seldom agreed on policy, but the decision to remain as secretary of state strained Webster’s standing with other Whigs.⁷¹

      Facing a recalcitrant Congress and alienated from the Whigs, Tyler became a pariah in Washington. He did what many unpopular presidents do when faced with a stalled domestic agenda: He turned his attention to foreign policy. Among their most pressing issues was a developing crisis with Great Britain over the border between Canada, where the British maintained a presence, and Maine. The secretary of state met with the British envoy, Lord Ashburton, and they agreed on the boundaries in the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, signed in 1842.⁷²

      Despite Webster’s show of support when the rest of the cabinet resigned, he and Tyler never developed a close relationship. Their political perspectives were simply too divergent. Leading Whigs also pressured Webster to resign, correctly observing that his continued political viability within the party required his departure. In May 1843, he finally left the administration, explaining that he had satisfied his ambition in the State Department in negotiating the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. It was time to move on to other challenges.⁷³

      On the eve of Webster’s departure, the Tyler administration took up the issue of whether Texas should be annexed as part of the United States. The president believed that it should be, despite fears among the antislavery faction of the Whigs that adding new territory would aggravate the question of whether slavery should be extended beyond current boundaries. Freed from his allegiance to the administration, Webster argued against annexation. It became a crucial issue as the 1844 presidential election neared. Henry Clay won the Whig nomination, which made him the party’s leader. Webster had been a faithful party man when he was a Federalist, and now he continued the tradition of fidelity when he was a Whig. He and Clay had seldom agreed on policy, but Webster came out strongly for Clay in 1844. To Webster’s disappointment, Democrat James K. Polk—“Young Hickory,” named for his ties to Old Hickory, Andrew Jackson—won the presidency in a close election.⁷⁴

      Webster had considered retirement when he left the Tyler administration, but he believed he had much left to contribute in his public life. Returning to the Senate in 1845, he remained a strong voice against Polk’s expansionist policies as well as the war with Mexico. As slavery became a key issue, Webster, caught in an untenable position, hedged his bets. His antislavery constituents and colleagues in New England expected him to oppose the spread of the institution as vigorously as possible. Throughout his career, Webster had objected to the peculiar institution; his opposition was no surprise to anyone. For a man who entertained presidential designs, however, he sought to mollify southerners, to the extent possible. Setting aside his objections to human bondage, he refused to condemn southern leaders, making him a Cotton Whig, the faction СКАЧАТЬ