Now, sir, how have these And ments in support of that charge. different arguments been met? from Massachusetts, after deliberating a whole night upon the cause, came into this chamber to vindicate New England, and instead of making up his issue with the gentleman from Missouri, on the charges which he had preferred, chooses to consider me as the author of those charges, and losing sight entirely of that gentleman, selects me as his adversary, and pours out all the vials of his mighty wrath upon my devoted head. Nor is he willing to stop there. He goes on to assail the institutions and policy of the South, and calls in question the principles and conduct of the State which I have the honor, in part, to represent. When I find a gentleman of mature age and experience, of acknowledged talents and profound sagacity, pursuing a course like this, declining the contest offered him from the West, and making war upon the unoffending South, I must believe—I am bound to believe he has some object in view he has not ventured to disclose. Why is this? Has the gentleman discovered in former controversies with the gentleman from Missouri, that he is over-matched by that Senator? does he hope for a more easy victory over a more feeble adversary? Has the gentleman's distempered fancy been disturbed by gloomy forebodings of "new alliances to be formed," at which he hinted? Has the ghost of the murdered coalition come back, like the ghost of Banquo, to “ sear the eyeballs" of the gentleman, and will it not "down at his bidding?" Are dark visions of broken hopes and honors lost forever, still floating before his heated imagination? Sir, if it be his object to thrust me between the gentleman from Missouri and himself, in order to rescue the East from the contest which it has provoked with the West, he shall not be gratified. Sir, I will not be dragged into the defence of friend from Missouri ! The South shall not be forced into a conflict not its own. The gentleman from Missouri is able to fight his own battles. The gallant West needs no aid from the South, to repel any attack which may be made on it from any quarter. Let the gentleman from Massachusetts controvert the facts and arguments of the gentleman from Missouri, if he can ; and if he win the victory, let him wear his honors; I shall not deprive him of his laurels. my REJOINDER TO MR. HAYNE. 181 XCV. REJOINDER TO MR. HAYNE. DANIEL WEBSTER. THE honorable member complained that I had slept on his speech. I must have slept on it or not slept at all. The moment the honorable member sat down, his friend from Missouri rose, and with much honeyed commendation of the speech, suggested that the impressions that it had produced were too charming and delightful to be disturbed by other sentiments or other sounds, and proposed that the Senate should adjourn. Would it have been quite amiable in me, sir, to interrupt this good feeling? Must I not have been absolutely malicious if I could have thrust myself forward, to destroy sensations thus pleasing? Was it not much better and kindlier, both to sleep upon them myself, and to allow others, also, the pleasure of sleeping upon them? But if it be meant, by sleeping upon his speech, that I took time to prepare a reply to it, it is quite a mistake; owing to other engagements, I could not employ even the interval, between the adjournment of the Senate and its meeting the next morning, in attention to the subject of the debate. Nevertheless, sir, the mere matter of fact is undoubtedly true-I did sleep on the gentleman's speech, and slept soundly. And I slept equally well on his speech of yesterday, to which I am now replying. It is quite possible, that in this respect, I possess some advantage over the honorable member attributable, doubtless, to a cooler temperament on my part; for, in truth, I slept upon his speeches remarkably well. But, the gentleman inquires, why he was made the object of such a reply? Why was he singled out? If an attack had been made on the East, he, he assures us, did not begin it—it was the gentleman from Missouri. Sir, I answered the gentleman's speech, because I happened to hear it; and because, also, I chose to give an answer to that speech, which, if unanswered, I thought most likely to produce injurious impressions. I did not stop to inquire who was the original drawer of the bill; I found a responsible endorser before me, and it was my purpose to hold him liable, and to bring him to his just responsibility, without delay. But, sir, this interrogatory of the honorable member, was only introductory to another. He proceeded to ask me, whether I had turned upon him in this debate, from the consciousness that I should find an over match, if I ventured on a contest with his friend from Mis souri. If, sir, the honorable member, "ex gratiâ modest +," had chosen thus to defer to his friend, and to pay him a compliment, without intentional disparagement to others, it would have been quite according to the friendly courtesies of debate, and not at all ungrateful to my own feelings. I am not one of those, sir, who esteein any tribute of regard, whether light and occasional, or more serious and deliberate, which may be bestowed on others, as so much unjustly with. holden from themselves. But the tone and manner of the gentleman's question, forbid me that I thus interpret it. I am not at liberty to consider it as nothing more than a civility to his friend. It had an air of taunt and disparagement, a little of the loftiness of asserted superiority, which does not allow me to pass it over without notice. It was put as a question for me to answer, and so put, as if it were difficult for me to answer, whether I deemed the member from Missouri an overmatch for myself, in debate here. It seems to me that this is extraordinary language, and an extraordinary tone for the discussions of this body. Matches and over-matches! Those terms are more applicable elsewhere, than here, and fitted for other assemblies than this. Sir, the gentleman seems to forget where and what we are. This is a senate: a senate of equals: of men of individual honor and personal character, and of absolute independence. We know no masters; we acknowledge no dictators. This is a hall for mutual consultation and discussion; not an arena for the exhibition of champions. I offer myself, sir, as a match for no man. I throw the challenge of debate at no man's feet. But, then, sir, since the honorable member has put the question, in a manner that calls for an answer, I will give him an answer; and I tell him, that holding my. self to be the humblest of the members here, I yet know nothing in the arm of his friend from Missouri, either alone, or when aided by the arm of his friend from South Carolina, that need deter even me from expressing whatever opinions I may choose to espouse, from debating whenever I may choose to debate, or from speaking whatever I may see fit to say, on the floor of the Senate. Sir, when uttered as a matter of commendation or compliment, I should dissent from nothing which the honorable member might say cf his friend. Still less do I put forth any pretensions of my own. But, when put to me as a matter of taunt, I throw it back, and say to the gentleman that he could possibly say nothing less likely FINAL TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY. 133 than such a comparison to wound my pride of personal char acter. The anger of its tone rescued the remark from intentional irony, which otherwise, probably, would have been its general acceptation. But, sir, if it be imagined, that by this mutual quotation and commendation; if it be supposed, that by casting the characters of the drama, assigning to each his part; to one the attack, to another the cry of onset or, if it be thought. that by a loud and empty vaunt of anticipated victory, any laurels are to be won here; if it be imagined, especially, that any or all of these things will shake any purpose of mine, I can tell the honorable member, once for all, that he is greatly mistaken, and that he is dealing with one of whose temper and character he has yet much to learn. Sir, I shall not allow myself, on this occasion, to be betrayed into any loss of temper; but if provoked, as I trust I shall never allow myself to be, into crimination and recrimination, the honorable member may, perhaps, find, that, in that contest, there will be blows to take as well as blows to give; that others can state comparisons as significant, at least, as his own, and that his impunity may, perhaps, demand of him whatever powers of taunt and sarcasm he may possess. I commend him to a prudent husbandry of his resources. XCVI.--FINAL TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY. DEM. REVIEW. THE naked right of a people to change their government none but the sturdiest adherents of unrelenting despotism will deny. But in the practical determination of a change, parties will inevitably arise; they will arrange themselves under the operation of necessary influences and principles springing from the diversity of human nature. The interests fostered by established systems, through the natural instinct of selfishness, will speedily form themselves into conservative bands. Their dependants, through all the ramifications of society, will hasten to swell the same ranks; while the naturally timid, dubious as to the virtue of their fellow-men, averse to change, conjuring up dismal prospects of future anarchy and misrule, will enlist under the same banners. So there will be gathered the wealth and fashion which draws its existence from old customs and laws-the privi lege which subsists on ancient error-and the talent which. accustomed to profound veneration, never travels beyond a beaten track. They will be met, on the other hand, by the untutored yet unsophisticated mass, and those old, independent men of genius who intuitively seize the right, and labor with fearless self-denying energy for human progress. The contest will be intense, as the interests and principles involved are great. As it embraces the great doctrines of science, the first truths of government, the welfare of nations, and the destinies of a race, a long warfare will infringe on the civilities of life, will break the restraints of law, will estrange friends, will throw the sword into families, and give rein to the wildest excesses of passion. Yet it is not difficult to tell where victory will perch. The rights and happiness of the many will prevail. Democracy must finally reign. There is in man an eternal principle of progress which no power on earth may resist. Every custom, law, science, or religion, which obstructs its course, will fall as leaves before the wind. Already it has done much, but will do more. The despotism of force, the absolutism of religion, the feudalism of wealth, it has laid on the crimson field; while the principle, alive, unwounded, vigorous, is still battling against nobility and privilege with unrelaxing strength. It i contending for the extinction of tyranny, for the abolition of prerogative, for the reform of abuse, for the amelioration of government, for the destruction of monopoly, for the establishment of justice, for the elevation of the masses, for the progress of humanity, and for the dignity and worth of the individual man. In this great work it has a mighty and efficient aid-Christianity, self-purified and self-invigorated, is its natural ally-Christianity struck the first blow at the vitals of unjust power. The annunciations of its lofty Teacher embodied truths after which the nations in their dim twilight had long struggled in vain. These potent doctrines were the inherent dignity, the natural equality, the spiritual rights, the glorious hopes, of man. They addressed the individual apart from social rank or position. Piercing the thick obscurity which ages of darkness have gathered— removing the obstructions of heaped-up falsehood and fraud --they speak to oppressed, down-trodden man. They speak to him in a voice of infinite power; they touch the chords of sensibility, and expand his soul to free, generous action; the |