WEBSTER AND HAYNE. 391 in that compact." From this doctrine there followed the conclusion that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of powers, not granted by the compact, the States, which were the contracting parties, had the right and were in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil and for maintaining within proper limits their own authorities, rights and liberties. Nor was this all; Kentucky had responded to Virginia, and through its legislature had sent forth, on the tenth of November, 1799, the celebrated resolutions penned by Jefferson, which declared that the States, each acting for itself, were the final judges of the extent of the power delegated to the general government. The doctrine of these resolutions had gone before the country, had become a great issue in 1800 and had then been settled by the election of Jefferson and by turning over to him and his associates the control of the federal government, and this, as Jefferson himself had said, had saved the Constitution at its last gasp. Hayne elaborated this doctrine of nullification, and concluded with the assertion that though the tariff had prostrated, and would soon ruin the South, this great disaster was not the chief ground of her complaint; she was most deeply concerned in the principle involved. The discussion of Congress had been substituted for the limitation of the Constitution, and thus the States and their people had been brought to a dependence on the vote of the federal government and were left nothing which they could call their own. If this condition of affairs continued there remained but one remedy, that which the immortal Hampden had implied, "resistance to unauthorized taxation." The South had spoken with no uncertain doctrine and in no uncertain tone. Who from the North could reply? The strength of Hayne's speech lay in its historical and 392 WEBSTER AND HAYNE. economic treatment of the subject. Many who listened to him were living when the Constitution was ratified, and remembered the opinions of that time. They knew that ratification had been a federal, not a national act, and that the States had then jealously asserted their claims to sovereignty. Madison, the author of the Virginia resolutions, and also of the report which Hayne had cited as his chief authority, was still living, and was the most venerated man in America. Almost from the inception of the Union, the South had controlled its policy. For a quarter of a century the party which had sprung up with the doctrine of '98, had been in power, controlling both Houses of Congress without interruption, and the executive department also, except during the administration of John Quincy Adams, which all true Democrats were wont to look upon as no more than a Federalist interregnum. There was one man who could reply to Hayne, but his friends were not sure of him, for his real opinions were in doubt among them. Webster had listened attentively throughout the speech, but the New England delegation and many who knew him well feared that he could not make an adequate reply. Senator Bell, of New Hampshire, plainly stated these fears to him, remarking sadly, that it was high time that the people of the country knew what the Constitution meant. "By the blessings of Heaven," Webster answered, "they shall learn this day before the sun goes down what I understand it to be." Of the reply which Webster made to Hayne, on the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh of January, the world has long taken note.1 He spoke of the Union as it was in 1830, not as it was during its infancy and early struggles. The Nation, no longer a mere compact, had be1 Webster's Works, III, 270. come a living, breathing, sentient organism. The Union had become an object of human sentiment and affection and was no longer considered a mere legal compact between thirteen governments in thirteen petty States. Hayne's every point was answered, but all not fully or equally. The strict letter of the law and the history of the country were largely on Hayne's side. He knew his ground and made the most of its opportunity. Webster equally familiar with our history knew the weakness of the South Carolina doctrine as a fixed national policy. He knew that no government can be administered solely on its history. He knew that the organic life of the Union is the corrective of its history, and therefore, he raised the whole discussion to a higher level than Hayne had attained. It was time to leave the past with its abstractions, its doctrinaire policies, its hair-splitting distinctions in constitutional construction and to turn to the American people as a Nation among the powers of the earth. The sentiment of Union in its moral comprehensiveness must forever efface the doctrine of '98. Hayne had rebuked New England for disloyalty at the time of the Hartford convention. Webster replied, that if New England had been disloyal, and she had not been, Hayne should extend his buffetings in like manner to all similar proceedings wherever else found. The main proposition, on which the whole debate hinged, was embodied in the question "Whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws?" Webster did not expatiate on the tariff of 1828, nor attempt to prove, as a lesser man might have done, that a policy of protection is essential to the maintenance of the Union. He discussed the issue in a larger way and maintained that the Union could not endure if its own judgment was not final on the constitu 394 BASIS OF WEBSTER'S SPEECH. tionality of its laws. This raised the old question of sovereignty, and in answering it he planted himself by the side of the authors of the Federalist. Sovereignty, he argued, is in the nation, and a residuary sovereignty is in the States.1 Like William Penn, when he established the most liberal of colonial governments, Webster placed the power with the people, in whom he declared, the ultimate political sovereignty of the nation has ever been found. And then he gave that definition of the American Union, which may be said to be the oldest and the most complete in our history: "I hold it to be a popular government elected by the people; those who administer it responsible to the people and itself capable of being maintained and modified just as the people 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 powers, they have theirs. There is no more authority with them to arrest the 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 government." The remedy for unconstitutional laws for which Hayne had contended, must unavoidably result in direct collision, force meeting force. A doctrine, said Webster, which goes the length of revolution. It was incompatible with any peaceful administration of the government, and would lead directly to civil commotion and disunion. When the last words of this most famous speech in the history of Congress were spoken, "liberty and Union now and forever, one and inseparable," and their reverberation through the Senate Chamber had ceased, no man present 1 Federalist, Nos. XXXII and LXXXI. FAME OF THE TWO SPEECHES. 395 was longer in doubt what Webster understood by the Constitution of the United States. His great speech went forth to the world as the exposition of American nationality, and lovers of the Union everywhere hailed him as the Expounder and Defender of the Constitution. During Hayne's speech, Calhoun sat opposite him, drank in his words and was satisfied. Nullification had found a voice more eloquent, though no more faithful, than his own. Henceforth, thought he, the youth of the South need only recite the burning words of Hayne to arouse an oppressed people to sacred resistance to unjust laws, and history would be Hayne's best friend. His speech passed at once into literature and became a popular selection at school and college. Whatever Hayne had failed to do, he had not failed to write his name in the memory of the Southern people. Webster's reply also passed into our literature. Cicero took delight that, during his lifetime, the boys at Rome were taught in the schools to recite his orations; Webster's reply to Hayne was honored in like manner. To-day the memory of thousands goes back to the district school house sunning itself like a beggar beside the dusty road, and to the time when the neighborhood gathered within it to hear the boys speak their last pieces; one recited Hayne's speech on nullification; another Webster's reply, and even their feeble repetition stirred the passions of the listeners. It was a tribute to the powers of ideas. Webster's reply is a mile-stone in our constitutional history. It was the first forensic utterance which put our political institutions into perspective and clothed them with the imperishable beauty of literature. It projected them into all time. Appealing to the sensibilities of the American people he put their aspirations into palpable form, and since the day of his great reply to Hayne, writers and speakers of every political school have |