394 DANIEL WEBSTER 



his historical argument was in some places weak, and 

 the weakness is unconsciously betrayed in a disposi- 

 tion toward wire-drawn subtlety, from which Mr. 

 Webster was usually quite free. His ingenious rea- 

 soning upon the meaning of such words as "compact" 

 and " accede " was easily demolished by Mr. Calhoun, 

 who was, however, more successful in hitting upon his 

 adversary's vulnerable points than in making good his 

 own case. In fact, the historical question was not 

 really so simple as it presented itself to the minds of 

 those two great statesmen. But in whatever way it 

 was to be settled, the force of Mr. Webster's practical 

 conclusions remained, as he declared in the brief re- 

 joinder with which he ended the discussion, "Mr. 

 President, turn this question over and present it as 

 we will argue it as we may exhaust upon it all 

 the fountains of metaphysics stretch over it all the 

 meshes of logical or political subtlety it still comes 

 to this, Shall we have a general government? Shall 

 we continue the union of the states under a govern- 

 ment instead of a league ? This is the upshot of the 

 whole matter; because, if we are to have a govern- 

 ment, that government must act like other govern- 

 ments, by majorities; it must have this power, like 

 other governments, of enforcing its own laws and its 

 own decisions ; clothed with authority by the people 

 and always responsible to the people, it must be able 

 to hold its course unchecked by external interposition. 

 According to the gentleman's views of the matter, the 

 Constitution is a league; according to mine, it is a 

 regular popular government. This vital and all-impor- 

 tant question the people will decide, and in deciding 

 it they will determine whether, by ratifying the pres- 



