CHAPTER XXXII. THE SECRET OF WEBSTER’S POWER.

It is hardly necessary to say that when Mr. Webster’s speech in reply to Hayne was published and read by the country at large it made a profound impression. Doubtless it kindled afresh in many wavering hearts a love for that union the claims of which upon the American citizen the orator so strongly urged. It is interesting to know that Hayne himself, while he essayed to answer it, appreciated its power.

Mr. Harvey relates, upon Mr. Webster’s authority, that when he had finished his speech some Southern members approached him cordially and said, “Mr. Webster, I think you had better die now and rest your fame on that speech.”

Mr. Hayne, who was standing near by, and heard the remark, said, “You ought not to die; a man who can make such speeches as that ought never to die.”

It is related that Mr. Webster, meeting his opponent at the President’s reception the same evening, went up to him and remarked, pleasantly,

“How are you to-night?”

“None the better for you, sir,” answered Hayne, humorously.

Henry Clay wrote later: “I congratulate you on the very great addition which you have made during the session to your previous high reputation. Your speeches, and particularly in reply to Mr. Hayne, are the theme of praise from every tongue, and I have shared in the delight which all have felt.”

In its powerful defense of the Constitution Mr. Webster carried with him patriotic men all over the country. Hon. William Gaston, of North Carolina, wrote thus: “The ability with which the great argument is treated, the patriotic fervor with which the union is asserted, give you claim to the gratitude of every one who loves his country and regards the Constitution as its best hope and surest stay. My engrossing occupations leave me little leisure for any correspondence except on business, but I have resolved to seize a moment to let you know that with us there is scarcely a division of opinion among the intelligent portion of the community. All of them whose understanding or whose conscience is not surrendered to the servitude of faction, greet your eloquent efforts with unmixed gratification.”

It is an interesting question how far Mr. Webster prepared himself for this his greatest, or, at any rate, his most effective parliamentary speech.

Upon this point let us read the statement of Mr. Webster himself, as given to his tried friend, Mr. Harvey.

In reference to the remark that he had made no preparation for the Hayne speech, he said: “That was not quite so. If it was meant that I took notes and studied with a view to a reply, that was not true; but that I was thoroughly conversant with the subject of debate, from having made preparation for a totally different purpose than that speech, is true. The preparation for my reply to Hayne was made upon the occasion of Mr. Foote’s resolution to sell the public lands. Some years before that, Mr. McKinley, a senator from Alabama, introduced a resolution into the Senate, proposing to cede the public domains to the States in which they were situated. It struck me at that time as being so unfair and improper that I immediately prepared an argument to resist it. My argument embraced the whole history of the public lands, and the government’s action in regard to them. Then there was another question involved in the Hayne debate. It was as to the right and practice of petition. Mr. Calhoun had denied the right of petition on the subject of slavery. In other words, he claimed that, if the petition was for some subject which the Senate had no right to grant, then there was no right of petition. If the Senate had no such right, then the petitioners had no right to come there. Calhoun’s doctrine seemed to be accepted, and I made preparation to answer his proposition. It so happened that the debate did not take place, because the matter never was pressed. I had my notes tucked away in a pigeon-hole, and when Hayne made that attack upon me and upon New England I was already posted, and only had to take down my notes and refresh my memory. In other words, if he had tried to make a speech to fit my notes he could not have hit it better. No man is inspired with the occasion; I never was.”

Mr. Webster was too great a man to wish for praise which he did not deserve. That is for men of inferior ability, who are glad to have it believed that their most elaborate utterances are “thrown off upon the spur of the moment.” Indeed he does not claim enough when he disclaims being inspired by the occasion. His encomium upon New England, his glowing peroration, were fused and put into enduring form under the pressure of strong emotion, which may well be termed inspiration. Yet it was always his habit to ascribe his great efforts to hard labor rather than to genius, and he remarked to a young clergyman on one occasion, who had questioned him in regard to some of his speeches, “Young man, there is no such thing as extemporaneous acquisition.”

If a man like Daniel Webster felt constrained to say this, how much more ought labor to be held necessary by the ordinary mind. My young readers may be assured that diligent and uncomplaining toil are the secret springs in most cases of worldly success. So, if they chance to dash off a smooth essay in a mood of inspiration, they may have good cause to doubt whether it has any solid value. I recall a certain school where a prize was offered for an essay on a subject requiring a certain amount of thought and research. The leading contestants were two boys, one quick and brilliant, the other slow and plodding, but sound. Both were anxious to succeed. The second began in due time and worked steadily, not allowing himself to be unduly hurried. The first waited till within two days of the date at which the essays were to be submitted, and then dashed off an essay which was very creditable under the circumstances. But it did not win. It was slow and sure that won the prize, then, as in so many other cases. I am glad to have the potent example of Daniel Webster to help me in enforcing a lesson so valuable to youth.

Yet Mr. Webster was always ready of speech. He could make a great speech upon any occasion, and upon any subject, however slight. An illustration of this is given by Hon. John Wentworth, of Illinois, in a letter from which I proceed to quote:

“Mr. Webster won my lasting gratitude by his assistance in the passage of the River and Harbor bill, in 1846. The bill had passed the House and been referred to the Committee on Commerce, a majority of whom were of the ‘strict construction’ school, believing that Congress could improve a natural harbor, but could not make one. I went before the committee to defend the appropriation for a harbor at Little Fort, now called Waukegan. I found I had no friends there but Senator Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland. The committee recommended that the appropriation be struck out. Senator John A. Dix, of New York, led the opposition. He had been a graduate of West Point, was a good engineer, had brought the map of survey into the Senate, and was having great influence against it. I was seated in the lobby directly behind Col. Thomas H. Benton, and Webster was upon his usual walk. He gave me a nod of recognition and passed on. Gen. Dix kept up his fire and I felt it. Our senators, Sidney Breese and James Semple, were both from the southern part of our State, and had no personal knowledge of the merits of the case. The Indiana senators were similarly situated. Wisconsin had no senators. And the Michigan senators lived at Detroit, and they had only a general knowledge of Lake Michigan.

“As Webster was traveling to and fro past me, the thought occurred to me that, as he was ‘a liberal constructionist,’ he was just the man to rectify all the damage that Gen. Dix was doing. But it was a small matter for so great a man. Besides, I knew that his colleague, Senator John Davis, was taking the side of Gen. Dix. As Webster would pass me I would resolve that the next time he would come I would speak to him. But my courage would forsake me when I reflected that he was a Whig and I was a Democrat. I wanted some excuse to speak to him. He had known my father. He was a son of New Hampshire, and a graduate of the same college with myself. But my heart failed me; and yet it was all the while sighing, ‘Webster, Webster, do but speak to me.’

“At length came his voice, in deep, sepulchral tone, ‘Wentworth, what is Dix making all this ado about?’

“Promptly the answer came: ‘Mr. Webster, since your trip around the lakes from Chicago, in 1837, we have had but few appropriations for old harbors and none for new ones. This place is half way between Chicago and Milwaukee, and we want a harbor of refuge there.’

“‘I see the point, I see the point,’ says Webster, and at once went to his seat upon the Senate floor.

“When Gen. Dix had concluded, Mr. Webster observed that he could add nothing to the conclusive argument of the senator from New York in favor of the appropriation. He thought he had satisfied all the senators that there was no harbor at the place, and so the House must have thought when it made the appropriation to construct one there. Upon what did the senator from New York found his doctrine that, when God created the world, or even Lake Michigan, He left nothing for man to do? The curse pronounced upon our first parents for their transgression was in entire conflict with any such doctrine. He did not believe that the Constitution of the United States was such a narrowly contracted instrument that it would not permit the construction of a harbor where the necessities of commerce required it. He then foreshadowed the growth of the West, its abundant products, its gigantic commerce, its numerous people. He started a steamer from Chicago laden to the guards with freight and passengers. He then described a storm in a manner that no man but Webster could describe. His flight of eloquence equaled his best at Bunker Hill or Plymouth Rock. You could hear the dashing waves, the whistling winds, the creaking timbers, and the shrieking passengers, and, as he sent the vessel to the bottom with all on board, he exclaimed: ‘What but a merciful Providence saved me from such a catastrophe when I passed over Lake Michigan in 1837?’ At such a dire disaster could the senator from New York derive any consolation from the reflection that his narrow interpretation of the Constitution had been maintained?

“As Webster closed Col. Benton turned to me and said, ‘That is the greatest speech upon so small a matter that I ever heard.’ Reverdy Johnson came up and said, ‘Now, don’t you abuse the Whigs any more.’ And Senator Breese said, ‘Now you can go back to the House. That speech saves us.’

“The bill passed without amendment. But alas! President Polk vetoed it. And out of his veto grew that wonderful event in the history of Chicago, the river and harbor convention of 1847, a vast assemblage, composed of the most talented, enterprising, wealthy and influential men of all parts of the country. At the laying of the corner-stone of the Douglas Monument, Gen. Dix was here as the principal orator. While others were speaking I called his attention to our magnificent harbor works. After complimenting them highly he said, ‘They ought to protect you from any storm—even from such a one as Webster manufactured for you in the Senate in 1846.’”

It must be remembered that this readiness of Mr. Webster arose not wholly from his great powers, but largely from the fact that all his life long he had been a diligent and faithful student. Hence it was that his mind was a vast reservoir of acquisition from which he could at will draw out what was most fitting upon any subject. So Sir Walter Scott, browsing in his boyhood among the treasures of legendary lore and feudal traditions, was unconsciously preparing himself for the novels and poetical romances with which many years afterwards he delighted the world, and made his native land famous.

Recurring to the subject of nullification, at which Mr. Webster had aimed so powerful a blow, it may be said that it was scotched but not killed. Col. Hayne was overwhelmed, but he was not convinced. Neither was John C. Calhoun, the greater representative of the same State, who entirely accorded with Hayne in his extreme views of the rights and powers of the separate States. Not long afterwards Col. Hayne resigned his seat in the Senate, in order to be elected Governor of South Carolina, and lead at home the opponents of the government, while Mr. Calhoun, resigning his place as Vice-President, was elected senator in the place of Hayne, to lead the forces of nullification on the floor of the Senate. Through the firmness of President Jackson their schemes came to naught, but were revived, as we know, thirty years later by the citizens of the same State, and the Civil War was the result.