Talk:Daniel Webster

'Italic text'

}}

Webster-Hayne Debate

The 1830 debate referenced here wasn't between Webster and Calhoun. Indeed, Calhoun was presiding over the Senate at the time, as Jackson's VP, and so couldn't have taken part in debate. Webster was famously debating with Hayne.

The article requires work -- I hope to get to it soon.

• I agree, Christofurio. I have done some stuff to better organize the article and add more information. Let me know what you think of these changes.

Also, what do you think of this long quote:

The Administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion...Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No sire, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libeled...Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and bailful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life itself, not when the safety of their country and its liberties may demand the sacrifice, but whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it?

In my view, I think we should eliminate this passage. It's too long to be useful and interesting in an encyclopedia article and can be replaced by a number of much better, pithy quotes from him. Can I get a second? Jacob1207 03:10, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about this quote from Webster, it's probably my favorite quote of any person. Anytime. Period. Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly and wickedness of the government may engage itself? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest right of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life, itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? . . . A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the heads of men. AdamJacobMuller Thu Oct 28 23:58:45 EDT 2004

Could I ask that somebody disambiguate this paragraph as to who Jeremiah Smith is in relation to the school? I am in no way an authority on the subject, but mentioning Jeremiah Smith is almost useless if nobody knows who he actually was. For all any random person knows, he could be a student. "In 1816, Webster was asked to help in a legal matter representing Dartmouth College. In the wake of the Jeffersonian Republicans' success in the New Hampshire elections (they gained the governorship and a majority in the state legislature) the state decided to declare Dartmouth a public institution. They altered the constitution and size of the College's trustee body and then added a further board of overseers, which they put into the hands of the state senate. In essence they seized control of a private body without consultation or any offer of compensation. Webster assisted his friend Jeremiah Smith in fighting the action all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, where he personally argued the case. The peroration of his speech [1] was both emotional and well-reasoned. Due in large part to Webster's efforts, the court decided five to one in Dartmouth's favor." N.R.Doctor 05:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC) (Edited for clarification, sorry, was my first time posting on wikipedia ^_^) N.R.Doctor 05:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource

Is his "second reply to Hayne" available on Wikisource? freestylefrappe 01:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Would anyone agree that perhaps the actual photograph of Daniel Webster be placed first in the article? However I think doing so would render the painting somewhat of less use. Sudachi 20:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Auto peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fear of speaking

Lodge is quoted as saying both that Webster acquired a lasting fear of public speaking and that he got over it at college. Which? Septentrionalis 20:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Lasting until college. TonyJoe 20:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Evaluation

I was wondering if their were any plans for expanding the section. As it is now, it looks kind of silly with just the one Lodge quote on Rockingham evaluating an event that happened three sections before it.TonyJoe 21:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As you see, Kennedy's evaluation has been added; famous opinions of Webster are facts, but they should be kept out of the narrative. I plan to add some of Schlesinger's summary, but it's a bit long, so I want to see if I can cut it.Septentrionalis 22:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that in some ways the evaluation kind of minimized the legacy section, so I combined the two under Historical Evaluations and Legacy. TonyJoe 00:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Bank

The relation of the Panic of 1837 to Jackson's Evil Plot against the Bank is not as obvious now-a-days as it was to good Republican historians in 1891. It would be simplest to omit the claim of causation altogether; on the other hand, we may wish to discuss the position that it was the Bank's effort to defend itself and demonstrate its necessity; and the position that the Bank amplified the economic cycle by inflating the currency. Septentrionalis 22:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer the former, omitting claims of causation. TonyJoe 00:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Lack of Vision

"These criticisms are continued by Arthur Schlesinger who finds weakness in Webster's lack of vision. He cites Webster's letter (quoted above) requesting retainers for fighting for the Bank, one of his most inveterate causes, and asks how the American people could "follow him through hell or high water when he would not lead unless someone made up a purse for him?" I'm curious as to how the letters (which border on bribery in my opinoin) lead to a question of Webster's vision?

I thought my extract was clear; Schlesinger contrasts him with Clay, who would have supported the American System disinterestedly. Webster did more for the Bank than anything else; if he could walk away from them, he held nothing as more important than his comfort.

Although I must quibble. While the letters are close to extortion (Schlesinger adds that the Bank had its back to the wall when Webster wrote them), Webster presumably thought of the retainers as lawyer's fees, which it is perfectly OK to demand, no matter how desperate your client. I'm not sure this is an adequate defense, but "bribery" may be too strong. Septentrionalis 00:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Extortion or bribery, the article doesn't use either of those words, but my problem is with what either has to do with a weakness in webster's vision? I don't see the correlation. I think that Webster was corrupt and a bit delusional in his perception of his corruption, but I still think he had a clear vision for the country: that it would remain united. I'm not understanding why the letter means he doesn't have a vision?TonyJoe 01:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC) correction: I don't understand why the letter means his vision is weak. TonyJoe 01:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• If Webster had had a vision of America energizing his politics, he would have been committed to that vision, and acted for it on its own merits.
• If he had been committed to the Bank, as Clay was to the American System (or FDR to the New Deal) he wouldn't have written the letter.
• If he wasn't committed to the Bank, there is no active issue he was committed to.
  • Schlesinger calls the Webster-Hayne debate not very important; [and I do not think secession was then an active issue, but a bugbear. If southerners had been advocating secession, as they were 25 years later, Webster's argument about accession and secession would have been met with "We support secession too, if necessary; so what?"]

Which of these seems unclear? (This is Schlesinger's position; we need not agree with it, but we must state it clearly.) Septentrionalis 16:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Professor Schlesinger on a few points; I think that there was definite vision and commitment by Webster as seen in his devotion to the union, as seen in Hartford, Hayne, and Seventh of March. I also disagree with his analysis of the letter with respect to his supporting the bank on its own merits; he may have been indifferent toward the bank but the letter doesn't prove it because he supported the bank without pay before and he may have continued no matter what, despite not being able to resist extorting an easy bribe for the month's drinking money. Nevertheless, you are right and we don't need to agree, merely state Schlesinger's position clearly and I can clearly see what Schlesinger's saying now and I'm now fine with the way it's presented.

You are, I think, reflecting Lodge's views here. Union was not a real issue between Webster's early youth and his extreme age - any more than Motherhood or Apple Pie are now; a real issue requires somebody on both sides. Even Hayne was not yet opposed to Union; it was by arguing that he effectively was that Webster beat him. (Garrison and his immediate circle opposed Union from the other side; but they were regarded as extremists and cranks by practical politicians like Webster.) Septentrionalis 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think that Secession and Nullification go hand and hand and that while there may not have been Anti-Union people in 1830, Nullification is very close to it, certainly indicative of a secessionist minded person which is I think inherently anti-union and webster's consistent opposition to that sort of thing does in my opinion show a vision for America, that being Union. I just find the usage of the word "vision" in Schlesinger's criticism to be slightly off the markTonyJoe 19:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

However, I think that at times in inserting analysis from the Age of Jackson you've sort of blurred the line between the book's opinion, and the articles, the former of which I suppose should have none. Take the Rush quote formerly in the Senate section and the way it's framed. It says that there's a controversy and that the explanation is "as Richard Rush had explained in 1827, the westward migration was against the manufacturers' interest: it tended to increase wages through the scarcity of labor; John Quincy Adams had kept the price of public land high, both to discourage movement and to maintain public revenue." This is one side of the contrversy and the article has cited it, true or untrue, as the explanation to the contrversy, which I find slightly objectionable (I don't believe it was even put in quotes either).

I should have been clearer. Rush was not a Jacksonian Democrat, he was Adams' Secretary of the Treasury; his position was therefore not controversial in 1830. Identifying him further seemed verbose, but I suppose we have to. Septentrionalis 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• I had actually known that Rush wasn't a Jacksonian (I clicked on the internal link), I just assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that Jacksonites and tariff supporters like Hayne would have used similar criticims. TonyJoe 19:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And also there are passages like this: "He invariably served the interest of the wealthy Boston merchants who elected and supported him, first for free trade, and later, when they had started manufacturing, for protection; both for the Union and for a compromise with the South in 1850. Schlesinger remarks that the real miracle of The Devil and Daniel Webster is not a soul sold to the devil, or the jury of ghostly traitors, but Webster speaking against the sanctity of contract." Note that "He invariably served the interest of the wealthy Boston merchants" isn't placed in quotes or attributed to anyone in a section entitled "historical anaylsis," which would seem to suggest that the article is offering its own analysis, which probably violates WP:OR. I also note its placement; It's two sentences, and they really seem unnecessary and they don't add much to the article's value except to allow for a cheap laugh at Webster's expense.

It's not in quotes because it wasn't a quotation; but a summary of Webster's politics and support - and Webster's biographers agree. I think the comment on Benét in fact states Webster's legal and constitutional position both accurately and memorably ; but I will see if I can find a more turgid expression of it. The source is Schlesinger, as stated, p. 84, note; but, again, it's not his words, which were longer. . Septentrionalis 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I will add that the delay in the Senate election was quite real; they were supposed to elect in the fall of 1826. Remini discusses the politics at some length, but I think the fusion statement summarizes adequately for a position not in dispute.

Some of the stuff you've added has been good (I think the usage of Rush's stuff clarifies Hayne's position and I think that Schlesinger criticism, even though I disagree with maybe 85% of it, is refreshing in the face of the generally positive discussions and token criticims by Kennedy and Lodge) but I think that the article can and should present insightful stuff in both fairly and in a way that doesn't rag on Webster or seems to hold an opinion of him, and in fairness, doesn't fawn over him either. With of course respect,TonyJoe 05:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lodge is using an artificial convention; he ignores the politics of Webster's elections, and attributes them to the force of his oratory, even when the oratory was non-campaign speeches months before. This is Victorian reticence in a textbook for the young; it should not be taken too literally. Septentrionalis 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations

There are two approaches to this:

• one is to use {{cite book|last=Lodge|title=Daniel Webster| year=1883| pages=118}} every time a book is cited.
• the other is cite Lodge's full details once in the bibliography, with {{cite book|last=Lodge|title=Daniel Webster| year=1883}}, and then to make the individual footnotes "Lodge, p. 118".

I really don't care which - although the second is my habit, as less trouble; but some reviewers have condemned articles for using the first, on the grounds that it makes the notes clumsy and confusing. Septentrionalis 17:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care either, though I did change some of the Schlesinger ones because I like to see them all the same. But you seem to know more about this than I do, do whatever you think is appropriate. TonyJoe 19:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Which Webster?

The fundamental question about this article is:

Is it about the Toga'd Statesman Daniel Webster, or is it about the New Hampshire politician of the same name? There are real advantages to the Statesman; if we say nothing about Webster's politics, it will be hard to be partisan.

In truth, I initially set out thinking that I would be writing more about the toga'd Webster, mainly because I thought that the facts would show him to be so. As I read more howver, I saw that that characterization isn't as justified as his general opinion would have it to be. Nevertheless, I stuck to the facts and attempted to present them neutrally. I didn't intentionally leave out anything major; Webster's behavior toward his "subscribers" boarders on bribery and I think that the article reflects that; Webster was in the pocket of manufacterers (though Webster apparently would view it the other way around) and I think the article reflects that; and that Webster's career in large part lacks any majory legislative achievements of his own and I think that the articles lack of stated legislative accomplishments reflects that and is perceptible to the reader. I think that the article does show Webster's flaws in a concise manner.

There are however some details that seem to be missing. You bring up Lodge's criticism of Seventh of March. That wasn't really intentional. I'd read the Lodge's bio of Webster up to around Seventh of March and I had already read Profiles in Courage; Seeing similarities in their take on Webster, I figured their opinion would be close on Seventh of March so why waste time reading Lodge's when I've already read the same thing in Kennedy's which is specifically pointed at Seventh of March. Obviously I was woefully incorrect as Lodge does have a seperate take and I completely agree with you that it should be inserted into the article along side Kennedy's praise.

Other things that are missing come from the sheer fact that, again, I just didn't have access to other works like Schlesinger's and Remini's. I think that other pertinent details, whether they reflect negatively on Webster or not, should be concisely stated though I don't think that their current absence is necessarily indicative of the absence of their underlying Webster-theme. I also believe that this can be accomplished without a major rewrite. For instance, I think that "His views on the Creeks" which were based on a fidelity to treaties rather than a fidelity to Creeks, could be accomplished by putting an exerpt from one of his speeches on the matter in a box and simply letting Webster indict himself. His failed court reform in the House (already alluded to) could easily have the part about his lack of legislative skills added to it, as could his support of the fugitive slave law with his personal intervention on its actual enforcement. There are also some others below that would be beneficial (I'm thinking of the elections of 1827 and 1852) but there are also some others that I would probably object to, like the "concentration of wealth" and "Jeremiah Mason senate race" thing.

So I guess in closing, the fundemental question really shouldn't be which do we choose, the toga or the New Hampshire politician, I think it should be about the unbiased presentation of the necessary facts no matter how they make Webster look. I just want to make it clear that I'm not nor have I ever in editing this article actually made a choice to present him in a toga or a cheap New England suit, I've only tried to give the pertinent facts that I had. TonyJoe 21:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Interlibrary loan is a wonderful thing. Septentrionalis 02:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is. When my school's library opens up next week I'll make use of it. As for now, I owe 25 dollars in fines at the public library and being a teenager I'd perfer to put my money toward other things.TonyJoe 03:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify: the New Hampshire politician is quite admirable, and Remini does admire him, this side idolatry. (After all, he wrote the speeches.) And he never wore cheap suits, just unfashionable ones. Septentrionalis 16:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I cite a modern biography, picked out at random (Remini: Daniel Webster; Remini clearly (as he says) has a "deep admiration for this extraordinary man", but he is drawing a man, not a marble statue.)

• In the crisis of 1814-5, Webster advocated that the States "interpose between their citizens" and conscription. This is the doctrine of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798.
  • Also that New England's loyalty to the Union was not exhausted, but it could be. "Those who cry out that the Union is in danger are themselves the authors of that danger." [1]
  • This was a single isolated speech, nor is any of it inconsistent with loyalty to the Union; but it was to be quoted at him later by Southerners, including Hayne.
  • He applauded the actions of the Hartford Convention (which he did not attend in part because it met when Congress was in session) as "moderate, temperate, and judicious".
    • The Hartford Convention defeated its secessionists, but it was unpopular as regionalist. (all pp. 129-131)

• Webster published his argument in the Dartmouth College case without the peroration, and described this as leaving "all the nonsense out". (159)

• Webster could give a fine speech on a subject, but he lacked legislative skills. When he introduced a court reform bill, which he was deeply interested in, he couldn't even get the House to vote on it. (This was also the contemporary opinion; Remini cites John Wentworth.) 214.

• "Webster frequently saw only what he wanted to see. In that sense his level of competence as a politician fell far below what it needed to be."
  • This is about his effort to get Jeremiah Mason elected to the Senate. Adams declined to help, on the grounds that there was no chance of Mason's election, and "Webster should have seen this." (246)

• Webster's election to the Senate came in June 1827, when he had already been re-elected to the House as a National Republican; it was an effort to unite the anti-Jackson men when the Jacksonians had a dominant presence in the Senate and a strong issue in Massachusetts, in the Charles River bridge.

• Webster was not strongly committed to the Indians; he voted (with his party) against the removal of the Cherokees, but did not speak. (335)
  • His views on the Creeks were solely on the ground that treaties should be kept; not out of sympathy for them. "I believe there is as little in the languages of the tribes as in their laws, manners, and customs, worth studying or worth knowing. All this is heresy, I know,but so I think" (259, quoting letter to Ticknor, March 1, 1826.

• He reckoned the concentration of wealth natural and inevitable, and opposed anti-monopoly efforts. (457)

• The recurrent rumors of sexual immorality (especially as a widower) may have destroyed his chances at the Presidency; and I find Sarah Goodrich, his favorite painter, who sent him a picture of her breasts, just too piquant.

• The Caroline affair and the Creole case could be described, as should the tripartite plan to resolve the Oregon question. (541-544, 558-560, 575)

• He argued the case that Stephen Girard's will was invalid for excluding religion from Girard College (589),

• His refusal to withdraw from the pursuit of the 1852 nomination ensured the nomination of Scott, to whom he was opposed.

• He was supported by repeated subscriptions from the merchants of Boston (599-603, 685 and elsewhere)

• He endorsed Franklin Pierce 750

• In his second term as Secretary of State, there were developments in Hawaii, Nicaraugua, Nova Scotia, and Peru (the last two leading to the brink of war) 715-8, 745-753

• he personally intervene to enforce the Fugitive Slave act against Thomas Sims. 696.

And we really should acknowledge Lodge's criticism of the Seventh of March as "mildness towards the South and rebuke towards the North", lacking "dignified courage and firm language" (Lodge, 143); and a "terrible mistake": a futile effort to halt the anti-slavery movement, in effect speaking on behalf on concessions to slavery. (Lodge, 323-332) Septentrionalis 14:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember that the first big question that a historian asks about a document is "Why was this written?" Profiles in Courage was written for the 1960 campaign. TonyJoe has recognized the togas, with their implication that Kennedy belongs in one too; but there is another effect: It was very much in Kennedy's interest, as the second Catholic candidate for President (after Al Smith, whom see), to find a pro-Southern document that was in no sense treasonable and praise its courage, wisdom, and moderation. The Seventh of March speech fulfills those conditions to a tee. A grain of salt may be indicated. Septentrionalis 16:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Death

The article has him dying on 24 October however in the info box it has the end of his time as Secretary of State as 25 October! Can someone correct this to whichever date is correct. Davewild 07:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Done, changed it to 10/24 based on this --W.marsh 14:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

historical evaluations and legacy

Line in question in this section: although this guy was gay he did have a wife that was very fat. i mean this lady was huge

To whom does "this guy" refer? Webster? Jackson? or Schlesinger?

Pendragginink (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC) he sucks balls