Montgomery County sentinel., 1882-03-17
Constitutional Liberty.

M. Editor: Your correspondent from
Washington is crisp and spicy writer, and
his letters are usually both instructive and
entertaining, but cannotcoincide with him
in all his opinions, and especially in his
conclusion respecting the relative merits Of
the debate in the United States Senate be-
tween Webster and Calhoun. The writer
asserted, in substance, that in that debate
Webster was the victor. With proper re-
spect to the opinion of the writer, contend
that his conclusion is Numerically opposite
to the real fact. In the language of Alex
ii. Stephens, "never was man more COM
pletely answered than was Webster" on
that occasion. His argument respecting the
sovereignty of the several States of the Union
was entirely overthrown by the powerful ar
gument and overwhelming logic of his titan
ic adversary. Webster was lofty, grand,
and massive as the granite hills Of his native
State, but in graphing with that question
his misfortune was he was on the wrong
side. Calhoun, in the debate, clearly proved
that Webster's difficulty was in his subject.
The great South Carolinian thoroughly de-
molished the whole fabric of his argument
respecting States rights from turret to foun-
dation stone" So convincing was the ar
gument of the great Southron that Webster
and afterwards adopted those of Calhoun in
some very important points, as was clearly
evinced by his argument in the case of the
Bank of Augusta VS.. Earle, and also by his
speech at Capon Springs, in Virginia, as well
as by his letter to Barring Brothers.
Webster did not attempt to answer the
last speech Of Calhoun on the question al
luded to. He could rot do it. The task
was too herculean for human being. No
man has since answered it, There it stands
to this day unanswered and will so remain
while truth has its legitimate influence, and
reason controls the judgment OF men" 1t
Is true that Webster did follow, but he con
fined himself to some explanations respect
ing the sense in which he had formerly used
the words constitutional compact" | have
often tried to realize how Webster must
have felt when Calhoun pierced him with
those words, "his own lance" Webster did
not attempt again TO attack the main and
salient points of Calhoun's argument. He
had perception enough to know the attempt
would be futile, and he had honesty enough
not 10 continue in error against the convic-
tons OF his own judgment, us before referred
TO.
He was called the great expounder OF the
Constitution, but he received from Calhoun,
in the old Senate chamber of the United
States, some brand new ideas concerning
the sovereignty of the States, and it would
be well for this country il large number of
our modern statesmen would throw aside
the bias of their prejudices and take lessons
from the same master. Then no more would
State legislatures be driven from their halls
or prevented from entering them by armed
mercenaries, or our polls be degraded by the
same mininns OF despotism. :
Webster's speech did not settle the ques-
ton of debate. That was left for the great
"paciiicater," Henry Clay to effect by his
compromise bill
The sentiment, Liberty and Union, now
and forever, one and inseparable," does not
receive my assent contend it is not true
know that to oppose my opinion TO that
OF Webster is like opposing the faint mur.
murings Of the tiniest brook to the deafening
roar OF Niagara. But, Notwithstanding his
mighty intellect, | am conscious he was
wrong in the sentiment, and having the cour-
age of my convictions | dare express them
though in so doing hope my conduct may
not SAVIOR of that temerity which would
conslgn me TO the class alluded TO by the
poet when he says, "fools rush in where an
gels fear to tread"
But "Daniel Webster was far from free
from political error" at is not the lot of
any man TO be perfect" have known great
men to make sad mistakes. Were Webster
alive, with the knowledge of the transac-
tons that occurred in this country during
the last twenty odd years to guide him, do
not believe he would assert, without great
modification, that Liberty and Union, now
and forever, are one and insepaable. "a
Unien pinned together by bayonets" is not
liberty A Union constrained and held 10.
gether by force is not liberty. A constitu.
ton, any. part of which was forced upon the
people Of country, or any section thereof,
is not the Egis OF freedom. The meanest
capacity can understand the truth of these
propositions, A Union was maintained by
those means, but liberty was wounded
by them.
II may be said those utteranoes of mine
are unpatriotic and disloyal. wish not TO
be misunderstood. accepted the situation
because 1t was the best ! could do. |
plighted my word and ! intepd oonscien.
tiously to maintain it, But did not stipu.
late to sing peans 10 usurpation. | will not
stultify myself by saying that the institu-
tons of my country are nOic so pure and so
free as they were before the several States
were partially shorn Of their just rights.
| partially surrendered my liberty, but my
remained my own. They are
above and beyond human powers They