The country was not yet
ready to follow the controversy to the end which Webster clearly
foresaw--civil war. But each side treasured its vitalized and enriched
arguments for use in a more strenuous day.
Advantage in the great discussion lay partly with Hayne and partly
with his brilliant antagonist. On the whole, the facts of history were
on the side of Hayne. Webster attempted to argue from the intent of
the framers of the Constitution and from early opinion concerning the
nature of the Union; but a careful appraisal of the evidence hardly
bears out his contentions. On economic matters also, notably the
operation of the protective tariff, he trod uncertain ground. He
realized this fact and as far as possible kept clear of economic
discussion. The South had real grievances, and Webster was well enough
aware that they could not be argued out of existence.
On the other hand, the Northerner was vastly superior to his opponent
in his handling of the theoretical issues of constitutional law; and
in his exposition of the practical difficulties that would attend the
operation of the principle of nullification he employed a fund of
argument that was simply unanswerable.
Pages:
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175