Arrived at the custom-house, he will tell the collector that he must collect no more duties under any of the tariff laws. This, he will be somewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a grave countenance, considering what hand South Carolina herself had in that of 1816. But, Sir, the collector would, probably, not desist, at his bidding. He would show him the law of Congress, the treasury instruction, and his own oath of office. He would say, he should perform his duty, come what might. Here would ensue a pause: for they say that a certain stillness precedes the tempest. The trumpeter would hold his breath awhile, and before all this military array should fall on the custom-house, collector, clerks, and all, it is very probable some of those composing it, would request of their gallant commander-in-chief, to be informed a little upon the point of law; for they have, doubtless, a just respect for his opinions as a lawyer, as well as for his bravery as a soldier. They know he has read Blackstone and the Constitution, as well as Turrene and Vauban. They would ask him, therefore, something concerning their rights in this matter. They would inquire, whether it was not somewhat dangerous to resist a law of the United States. What would be the nature of their offence, they would wish to learn, if they, by military force and array, resisted the execution in Carolina of a law of the United States, and it should turn out, after all, that the law was constitutional? He would answer, of course, treason. No lawyer could give any other answer. John Fries, he would tell them, had learned that some years ago. How, then, they would ask, do you propose to defend us? We are not afraid of bullets, but treason has a way of taking people off, that we do not much relish. How do you propose to defend us? 'Look at my floating banner,' he would reply, 'see there the nullifying law!' Is it your opinion, gallant commander, they would then say, that if we should be indicted for treason, that same floating banner of yours would make a good plea in bar? 'South Carolina is a sovereign state,' he would reply. That is true—but would the judge admit our plea? 'These tariff laws,' he would repeat, 'are unconstitutional, palpably, deliberately, dangerously.' That all may be so; but if the tribunal should not happen to be of that opinion, shall we swing for it? We are ready to die for our country, but it is rather an awkward business, this dying without touching the ground! After all, that is a sort of hemp-tax, worse than any part of the tariff.
Mr. President, the honourable gentleman would be in a dilemma, like that of another great general. He would have a knot before him which he could not untie. He must cut it with his sword. He must say to his followers, defend yourselves with your bayonets; and this is war—civil war." pp. 421, 422.
After this his tone becomes even more grave and solemn than before, until, when he approaches the conclusion, he bursts forth with the expression of feelings of attachment to the Union and the Constitution, which it seemed no longer possible for him to suppress. We should quote the passage, but that it has been quoted every where, and is familiar to every body.
We forbear to pursue this debate any further. Mr. Hayne replied in a short speech, which he afterwards expanded in the newspapers into a long one; and Mr. Webster rejoined with a syllogistic brevity, exactness, and power, which carried with them the force and conclusiveness of a demonstration; and thus ended the discussion as between these two. It was afterwards continued, however, for several weeks, and a majority, or nearly a majority, of the whole Senate took part in it; but whenever it is now recollected or referred to, the contest between the two principal speakers, from the 19th to the 23d of January, is, we believe, generally intended.
The results of this memorable debate are already matter of history. The vast audience that had contended for admission to the senate-chamber, till entrance became dangerous, were the first to feel and make known its effect; for, with his peculiar power of explaining abstruse and technical subjects, so that all can comprehend them, Mr. Webster there expounded a great doctrine of the constitution, which had been powerfully assailed, so that all might feel the foundations on which it rests, to have been consolidated rather than disturbed by the attempt to shake them. Their verdict, therefore, was given at the time, and heard throughout the country. But since that day, when the crowd came out of the senate-chamber rejoicing in the victory which had been achieved for the constitution, nearly twenty editions of the same argument have been called for in different parts of the country, and thus scattered abroad above an hundred thousand copies of it, besides the countless multitudes that have been sent forth by the newspapers, until almost without a metaphor, it may be said to have been carried to every fire-side in the land. The very question, therefore, which was first submitted to an audience in the capitol,—comprising, indeed, a remarkable representation of the talents and authority of the country, but still comparatively small,—has since been submitted by the press to the judgment of the nation, more fully, probably, than any thing of the kind was ever submitted before; and the same remarkable plainness, the same power of elucidating great legal and constitutional doctrines till they become as intelligible and simple as the occupations of daily life, has enlarged the jury of the senate-chamber till it has become the jury of the whole people, and the same verdict has followed. What, therefore, Chancellor Kent said in relation to it, is as true as it is beautiful;—"Peace has its victories as well as war;"—and the triumph which Mr. Webster thus secured for a great constitutional principle, he may now well regard, as the chief honour of his life.
Indeed, a man such as he is, when he looks back upon his past life, and forward to the future, must needs feel, that his fate and his fortunes, his fame and his ambition, are connected throughout with the fate and the fortunes of the constitution of his country. He is the child of our free institutions. None other could have produced or reared him;—none other can now sustain or advance him. From the days when, amidst the fastnesses of nature, his young feet with difficulty sought the rude school-house, where his earliest aspirations were nurtured, up to the moment when he came forth in triumph from the senate-chamber, conscious that he had overthrown the Doctrines of Nullification, and contended successfully for the Union of the States, he must have felt, that his extraordinary powers have constantly depended for their development and their exercise on the peculiar institutions of our free governments. It is plain, indeed, that he has thriven heretofore, by their progress and success; and it is, we think, equally plain, that in time to come, his hopes and his fortunes can be advanced only by their continued stability and further progress. We think, too, that Mr. Webster feels this. On all the great principles of the constitution, and all the leading interests of the country, his opinions are known; his ground is taken; his lot is cast. Whoever may attack the Union on any of the fundamental doctrines of our government, he must defend them. Prima fortuna salutis monstrat iter. The path he has chosen, is the path he must follow. And we rejoice at it. We rejoice, that such a necessity is imposed on such a mind. We rejoice, that, even such as he cannot stand, unless they sustain the institutions that formed them; and that, what is in itself so poetically just and so morally beautiful, is enforced by a providential wisdom, which neither genius nor ambition can resist or control. We rejoice, too, when, on the other hand, a man so gifted, faithfully and proudly devotes to the institutions of his country the powers and influence they have unfolded and fostered in him, that, in his turn, he is again rewarded with confidence and honours, which, as they can come neither from faction nor passion, so neither party discipline nor political violence can diminish nor impair them. And, finally, and above all, we rejoice for the great body of the people, that the decided and unhesitating support they have so freely given to the distinguished Senator, with whose name "this land now rings from side to side," because he has triumphantly defended the Union of the States and the principles of the Constitution;—we rejoice, we say, for the people, because, such a support given by them for such a cause, not only strengthens and cements the very foundations of whatever is most valuable in our government; but at the same time, warns and encourages all who would hereafter seek similar honours and favours, to consult for the course they shall follow, neither the indications of party nor the impulses of passion, but to address themselves plainly, fearlessly, calmly, directly to the intelligence and honesty of the whole nation, "and ask no omen but their country's cause."
[5] These are the last words of the speech; and the sentiment they contain in favour of a navy and naval protection, has been maintained with great earnestness by Mr. Webster for nearly thirty years, on all public occasions. In an oration delivered July 4th, 1806, and printed at Concord, N. H., he says, "an immense portion of our property is in the waves. Sixty or eighty thousand of our most useful citizens are there, and are entitled to such protection from the government as their case requires." In another oration, delivered in 1812, and printed at Portsmouth, he says, "a navy sufficient for the defence of our coasts and harbours, for the convoy of important branches of our trade, and sufficient, also, to give our enemies to understand, when they injure us, that they too are vulnerable, and that we have the power of retaliation as well as of defence, seems to be the plain, necessary, indispensable policy of the nation. It is the dictate of nature and common sense, that means of defence shall have relation to the danger." These doctrines in favour of a navy were extremely unwelcome to the nation when they were delivered; the first occasion referred to, being just before the imposition of the embargo; and the second, just before the capture of the Guerriere. How stands the national sentiment now? Who doubts the truth of what Mr. Webster could not utter in 1806 and 1812 without exciting ill-will to himself?
[6] North American Review, 1821. Vol. xii. p. 342.
[7] See the beautiful passage respecting the fortune and the life of John Adams at p. 44.
[8] In an able article on the battle of Bunker's Hill, which is found in the North American Review, 1818, VII. 225-258, and is understood to have been written by Mr. Webster, he says,—"In truth, if there was any commander-in-chief in the action, it was Prescott. From the first breaking of the ground to the retreat, he acted the most important part; and if it were now proper to give the battle a name from any distinguished agent in it, it should be called, Prescott's battle." We have no doubt this is but an exact measure of justice to one of those who hazarded all in our revolution, when the hazard was the greatest. The whole review is strong, and no one hereafter can write the history of the period it refers to, without consulting it. The opening description of the battle is beautiful and picturesque.