Webster's position with regard to slavery was taken at this time, and in spite of his conduct in later years, it cannot be said that his theoretical attitude was ever altered. He believed, as did so many good men and leaders, both North and South, that slavery was an evil, disastrous to the white race as much as to the bfack. The earlier great men of the South in the main held this view, and it was left for Calhoun and Jefferson Davis, under the controlling influence of cotton, to discover that the enslavement of the blacks was ordained by God for the benefit of everybody. But Webster believed first of all in the Constitution. The Constitution recog nized slavery, and therefore it was impossible to meddle with it, except to see that its increase and spread were discouraged by every means that the Constitution would permit.
On the other sectional issue, that of the tariff, which some per sons consider even more vital than slavery, inasmuch as it meant the growing triumph of the industrial North over the agricultural South, Webster was more aggressive, and distinctly advocated the high protection which the Southern leaders felt to be fatal to their prosperity. But above all Webster ranged himself on the side of those who opposed sectional division and disunion tendencies altogether. In 183o a comparatively minor debate as to the public lands brought on the Southern attack upon New England, and Webster, in defending his native state, replied to Hayne with the glorification of the Union, which probably did more to unify the country than any single utterance of any man. Hayne and his fol lowers often had the technical interpretation of the Constitution on their side, but Webster had common sense behind him, he was himself the incarnation of common sense, and he gave the common sense of a united country a superb, an enduring dignity of expres sion which has never been forgotten and never can be. In his argu ments with Calhoun over nullification, in 1833, there is the same striking contrast. Calhoun was perhaps more sound as regards mere technical logic, but Webster had the weight and the enduring substance of human truth.
In this nullification quarrel with South Carolina Webster heart ily supported Andrew Jackson. But there was no sympathy be tween the two. Webster was an aristocratic Whig of the old school, Jackson an aggressive Democrat of the America to come, and over the bank and other things they came into violent conflict. It should be added that Webster's most serious contributions to political thought are to be found in his discussion of strictly financial mat ters. Moreover, when Jackson went out, in 1836, Webster would have liked to come in, and this was one of the acute crises in the fever of his presidential desires. It is amusing to see how many of his biographers deny his ambition. He wanted to serve his country, they say; he wanted to be where he could be of the greatest use.
It is the old story, and no one has ever yet succeeded in disentan gling the personal from the patriotic motive in these matters. The Presidency is the final seal of success in American politics, and no man who has given his life to those politics has ever been willing to see the Presidency slip from him without a sigh of despair. "I would rather be right than be President," said Henry Clay. But Clay and Webster and many another have persuaded themselves that the road to being President was the road to being right. Where will you find a more ingenuous avowal of ambition than in Web ster's words to his friend Plumer : "I have done absolutely noth ing. At 3o Alexander had conquered the world ; and I am 4o." But Van Buren was elected, and Webster passed by, and for a time he turned his thoughts to private life. His affairs needed more attention than he could give them. He had been twice married, first in 1808, to Grace Fletcher, a love-match ; second in 1329, to I Caroline Le Roy. He had an expensive family, and his own tastes were expensive. He liked social life of all sorts, and social life was costly. He liked eating and drinking, especially the latter. He was happy on his great farms, in Franklin and at Marshfield.
But the farms and the country life were almost as ruinous as dissipation, perhaps more so. And the trouble was aggravated by Webster's business habits, or lack of them. He was a master of theoretical finance, but he could not keep his own private accounts, did not even try to keep them systematically. In consequence, he was always in trouble, always borrowing and renewing. When such business methods get mixed up with politics, there may not be cor ruption, but there is terrible danger of it. Webster's biographers insist that he was never personally dishonest. But there is a pro found remark of Webster himself, which is worth remembering : "There are means of influence not generally esteemed positively corrupt, lihich are competent to produce great effects." With the failure of his immediate political ambitions, Webster turned his attention to more general matters, and grew anxious to see something of Europe. The embassy to England had always tempted him, and it was even said that he had manoeuvred to get his friend Everett out of the position so as to succeed him. This came to nothing, but in 1839 Webster arranged a trip across the water and he was received by his English friends with every pos sible attention and courtesy. He wrote rather extensive letters home, but it is curious to note, with these, as with all his corre spondence, the singular lack of intimate personal revelation. In reading these lengthy epistles, we may be driven to wonder whether Webster's external life was so active and varied that it left the inner life somewhat jejune and bare.