CHAPTER XXI. WHY DANIEL WAS SENT TO CONGRESS.

Even in his Sophomore year at college Daniel had taken a considerable interest in public affairs, as might readily be shown by extracts from his private correspondence. This interest continued after he entered upon the practice of the law, but up to the period of his election to Congress he had never filled a public office. It is generally the case with our public men that they serve one or more preliminary terms in one or both branches of the State Legislature, thus obtaining a practical knowledge of parliamentary proceedings. This was not the case with Mr. Webster. His public career would probably have been still further postponed but for the unfortunate state of our relations with England and France for some years preceding the war of 1812.

I can only allude very briefly to the causes which had almost annihilated our commerce and paralyzed our prosperity. Both England and France had been guilty of aggressions upon our commercial rights, and the former government especially had excited indignation by its pretended right to search American vessels, for British seamen and deserters. This was intensified by the retaliatory order of Napoleon, issued Dec. 17, 1807, known as the Milan Décrets, in accordance with which every vessel, of whatever nationality, that submitted to be searched, forfeited its neutral character, and even neutral vessels sailing between British ports were declared lawful prizes. Thus America was between two fires, and there seemed to be small chance of escape for any. Moreover, Great Britain interdicted all trade by neutrals between ports not friendly to her, and the United States was one of the chief sufferers from the extraordinary assumptions of the two hostile powers.

To save our vessels from depredation President Jefferson recommended what is known as the Embargo, which prevented the departure of our vessels from our own ports, and thus of course suspended our commercial relations with the rest of the world. The Embargo was never a popular measure, and its effects were felt to be widely injurious. I do not propose to discuss the question, but merely to state that in 1808 Mr. Webster published a pamphlet upon the Embargo, and, as his biographer claims, this must be regarded as his first appearance in a public character. I must refer such of my readers as desire more fully to understand the condition of public affairs and the part that the young lawyer took therein to the first volume of Mr. Curtis’s memoir.

It may be stated here, however, to explain the special interest which he felt in the matter, that Portsmouth, as a seaport, was largely affected by the suspension of American commerce, and its citizens felt an interest easily explained in what was so disastrous to their business prosperity.

On the Fourth of July, 1812, Mr. Webster delivered by invitation an oration before the “Washington Benevolent Society,” of Portsmouth, in which he discussed in a vigorous way the policy of the government, which he did not approve. Sixteen days before Congress had declared war against England. To this war Mr. Webster was opposed. Whatever grievances the government may have suffered from England, he contended that there was “still more abundant cause of war against France.” Moreover America was not prepared for war. The navy had been suffered to fall into neglect during Jefferson’s administration, until it was utterly insufficient for the defense of our coasts and harbors.

On this point he says: “If the plan of Washington had been pursued, and our navy had been suffered to grow with the growth of our commerce and navigation, what a blow might at this moment be struck, and what protection yielded, surrounded, as our commerce now is, with all the dangers of sudden war! Even as it is, all our immediate hopes of glory or conquest, all expectation of events that shall gratify the pride or spirit of the nation, rest on the gallantry of that little remnant of a navy that has now gone forth, like lightning, at the beck of Government, to scour the seas.

“It will not be a bright page in our history which relates the total abandonment of all provision for naval defense by the successors of Washington. Not to speak of policy and expediency, it will do no credit to the national faith, stipulated and plighted as it was to that object in every way that could make the engagement solemn and obligatory. So long as our commerce remains unprotected, and our coasts and harbors undefended by naval and maritime means, the essential objects of the union remain unanswered, and the just expectation of those who assented to it, unanswered.

“A part of our navy has been suffered to go to entire decay; another part has been passed, like an article of useless lumber, under the hammer of the auctioneer. As if the millennium had already commenced, our politicians have beaten their swords into plowshares. They have actually bargained away in the market essential means of national defense, and carried the product to the Treasury. Without loss by accident or by enemies the second commercial nation in the world is reduced to the limitation of being unable to assert the sovereignty of its own seas, or to protect its navigation in sight of its own shores. What war and the waves have sometimes done for others, we have done for ourselves. We have taken the destruction of our marine out of the power of fortune, and richly achieved it by our own counsels.”

This address made a profound impression, voicing as it did the general public feeling in New Hampshire on the subjects of which it treated. It led to an assembly of the people of Rockingham County a few weeks later, called to prepare a memorial to the President protesting against the war. To this convention Mr. Webster was appointed a delegate, and it was he who was selected to draft what has been since known as the “Rockingham Memorial.”

One of the most noteworthy passages in this memorial—noteworthy because it is an early expression of his devotion to the union—I find quoted by Mr. Curtis, and I shall follow his lead in transferring it to my pages.

“We are, sir, from principle and habit attached to the union of these States. But our attachment is to the substance, and not to the form. It is to the good which this union is capable of producing, and not to the evil which is suffered unnaturally to grow out of it. If the time should ever arrive when this union shall be holden together by nothing but the authority of law; when its incorporating, vital principles shall become extinct; when its principal exercises shall consist in acts of power and authority, not of protection and beneficence; when it shall lose the strong bond which it hath hitherto had in the public affections; and when, consequently, we shall be one, not in interest and mutual regard, but in name and form only—we, sir, shall look on that hour as the closing scene of our country’s prosperity.

“We shrink from the separation of the States as an event fraught with incalculable evils, and it is among our strongest objections to the present course of measures that they have, in our opinion, a very dangerous and alarming bearing on such an event. If a separation of the States ever should take place, it will be on some occasion when one portion of the country undertakes to control, to regulate and to sacrifice the interest of another; when a small and heated majority in the Government, taking counsel of their passions, and not of their reason, contemptuously disregarding the interests and perhaps stopping the mouths of a large and respectable minority, shall by hasty, rash and ruinious measures, threaten to destroy essential rights, and lay waste the most important interests.

“It shall be our most fervent supplication to Heaven to avert both the event and the occasion; and the Government may be assured that the tie that binds us to the union will never be broken by us.”

Even my young readers will be struck by the judicial calmness, the utter absence of heated partisanship, which mark the extracts I have made, and they will recall the passage well known to every schoolboy—the grand closing passage of the reply to Hayne.

As regards style it will be seen that, though yet a young man, Mr. Webster had made a very marked advance on the Fourth of July address which he delivered while yet a college-student. He was but thirty years old when the memorial was drafted, and in dignified simplicity and elevation of tone it was worthy of his later days. The young lawyer, whose time had hitherto been employed upon cases of trifling moment in a country town, had been ripening his powers, and expanding into the intellectual proportions of a statesman. It was evident at any rate that his neighbors thought so, for he was nominated as a Representative to the Thirteenth Congress, in due time elected, and, as has already been stated, he first took his seat at a special session called by the President on the 24th of May, 1813.

It was in this Congress that Daniel Webster made the acquaintance of two eminent men, with whose names his own is now most frequently associated—Henry Clay, of Kentucky, and John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina.