The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1882-02-02

idea that he should be nominated, and
that the great office was at last with
in his grasp. So filled was he with
this faith that Mr.. Choate had not the
heart to tell him that there was no
chance, but held his peace, and went
back to lead, the forlorn hope and to
watch the prolonged contest which
ended in the nomination Of General
Scott. Even If he had been success
full, it is nearly certain that Mr.. Web
ster could not have lived much longer.
AS 1t was, the disappointment fell
upon him with crushing effect. He
withdrew to Marshfeld, hid his face
from the world, and died. He died
proudly, as he had lived, but not with
out touch of that atfectation which
DR.. johnson said came to every man
It the last hour, and which Webster
had himself condemned. To the pub
ic he was silent, but he advised hi
intimate friends to vote for Pierce.
md to d them that the wings as ma
ional party were ended. Melancholy
words Of farewell from a great party
chief to his trusted friends and follow
ers!
The whig party was indeed at an
end, but it was wrecked by the COM
promise measures and the 7th of
March speech, and not by the nomina-
ton of Scott That speech was the
supreme trial of Websters whole ca
reer, and he failed. Had he but died
an hour before that chance, it had
been for him a blessed time. His
friends and admirers say that there
was nothing new, nothing inconsistent
with his past utterances, in that
speech. In a certain sense, so far as
opinions went, it was consistent. The
trouble with the 7th of March sp ech
was in the changed tone and attitude
of the man. Ir 1889, when Jackson
fac South Carolina, Webster stood
close beside him. Then the question
turned on tariff, and Webster said,
Let US have no compromises until the
supremacy of the law is vindicated be-
| yond doubt or cavil. In 1850 Califor-
MIA stood with a free constitution in
her hand, waiting for admission, and
Taylor, like Jackson, no statesman,
but merely plain American soldier,
said, Do your duty; admit California.
l hear the threats Of Texas; [ see the
boundary troubles: but admit Califor-
MIA, and I will settle the boundaries, if
need be. Taylor was right, as Jack
son had been. But this time Webster
did not stand by the president. He
bowed before the menaces of the
South, and urged compromise. His
argument against Taylor's policy pro-
ceeded on futile distinction, and mp
on dread that display Of force by the
general government meant disunion
whereas a. bold. firm attitude on the
part of the administration would, in
fact, have done more for peace and
for union than any compromise.
| Compromise meant concession to the
South, and to that there was no end
In few years the South tore up all
compromises; in few years more
they plunged the country into civil
war, because they lost an election
Vigor and decision would have checked
the rising mischief in 1850; weakness
and concession simply hastened dis
nnion. The Northern wings ridiculed
Wpbster's dread Of secession. but the
dread was well founded His fault lay
in meeting the danger, not like brave
man, as in 1882, but with timidity
and compromise.
In 1882 the question was tariff, in
1850 human slavery. Webster had
denounced the slave trade at Ply
mouth; he had opposed early and late
the extension of slave territory; he
had raised a voice Of warning and de-
nunciation against the annexation OF
Texas; he had resisted the acquisition
Of territory from Mexico; he Was op-
posed to slavery as system; he had
foreseen the magnitude of the aboli-
tion agitation when others had scoffeo
at it; he had felt that it was the duty
of Southern statesmen to deal with
the question; and now he turned about
and derided the Wilmot proviso as al
abstraction, sneered at the free-soiler;
as fanatics, urged compromise, anc
supported a new fugitive slave Law
with might and M in. The Wilmot
proviso was declaration Of principle
and, on the same grounds as Taylor
policy, it should have been supported
How could the South ever be brough
to reason if they always got wha
they wanted by a sufficiency of angry
threats? Webster's place was at thu
head Of the free-soil movement, of th'
constitutional opposition to slavery
He saw, perhaps omore plainly thar
any one, the magnitude and the inev
liable character Of that question, an(
he should have led the North in tn,
determined purpose to deal with it ant
When, instead of doing this, he criet
out for compromise and concession, h.
seemed to the rising of the North
what in fact he was, false to his race
to his past. to his principles, to him
self. He became in moment ''los
leader"
Zone task more declined, more footpath untrod.
His failure when he came to the cru
cial point was complete, and was de
plorable and terrible for the very rea
{ son that he was so great in intellect
so marvellous in faculty, so highly
gifted, and with past crowded will
words and deeds which had becom,
part of the history of his country
The greater the height, the worse tn
fall and the deeper the censure.
Webster's course in 1850 was due t.
two motives: his love for the Union
and his wish to gain the favor Of tn
South, and thereby the presidency
The first was noble, even if misguided
the second, and much the weaker, Wa
pitiable i'll such case and in such
man
4 x 4 x X