What do you think?
Rate this book
One and Inseparable: Daniel Webster and the Union
From the ratification of the Constitution to the outbreak of the Civil War, few persons played a greater role in American history than Daniel Webster. He was a spokesman of New England commercial interests in the War of 1812, approving the threat of state interposition by the Hartford Convention; later an apostle of the industrial system and advocate of protective tariffs; a brilliant expositor of the Constitution as an instrument for national economic growth and strong central government; the architect of a foreign policy that brought permanent peace between the United States and England; the Great Compromiser who, as much as any other public man, tried to reconcile the clashing interests of North and South.
Despite his importance Webster has never been the subject of a full-scale, scholarly biography. Maurice G. Baxter’s One and Inseparable traces the interrelated evolution of the public career and the private life of this imposing and controversial Yankee. He portrays Webster as an unswerving patriot, an advocate of nationality, and a champion of peace and the Union―but also reveals him as a self-promoting politician who varied his positions to suit the interests of his constituents and was sometimes insensitive to the great moral issues of his day. This devoted family man, enterprising if not altogether successful farmer, and genial companion could he egotistical, immoderate in his drinking habits, and careless about personal finances. Reading Baxter’s lucid, moving biography it is possible to understand why Ralph Waldo Emerson so detested Daniel Webster but also called him “the completest man” produced by America, “Nature had not in our days, or not since Napoleon, cut out such a masterpiece.”
Despite his importance Webster has never been the subject of a full-scale, scholarly biography. Maurice G. Baxter’s One and Inseparable traces the interrelated evolution of the public career and the private life of this imposing and controversial Yankee. He portrays Webster as an unswerving patriot, an advocate of nationality, and a champion of peace and the Union―but also reveals him as a self-promoting politician who varied his positions to suit the interests of his constituents and was sometimes insensitive to the great moral issues of his day. This devoted family man, enterprising if not altogether successful farmer, and genial companion could he egotistical, immoderate in his drinking habits, and careless about personal finances. Reading Baxter’s lucid, moving biography it is possible to understand why Ralph Waldo Emerson so detested Daniel Webster but also called him “the completest man” produced by America, “Nature had not in our days, or not since Napoleon, cut out such a masterpiece.”
- GenresBiography
668 pages, Hardcover
First published October 5, 1984
About the author
Maurice G. Baxter
8 booksMaurice G. Baxter was Emeritus Professor of History at Indiana University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 23, 2023
Along with Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster was one of the titans of the antebellum era in American history. A gifted orator, Webster had a long career in public office despite repeated setbacks in his never-ending quest for the presidency, which only culminated in his death. Maurice Baxter chronicles his life from his birth in 1782 New Hampshire to his death less than a decade before the Civil War broke out.
Webster came from modest upbringing, but quickly stuck out as a young man in possession of a keen intellect and capacity for the law. He became a lawyer, and a successful one too. In fact Webster soon was bringing in a sizable income, one almost unfathomable to most Americans of the early 19th century. Webster became an elite attorney, attracting high-profile (and well-paying) clients throughout his life. He argued twenty-four cases in front of the Supreme Court over several decades, and won thirteen of them. That is pretty impressive. In fact, Baxter devotes multiple chapters to Webster's legal career. In his Preface, Baxter states that he will do that, and he does. He considered it fundamental to who Webster was - someone who had utmost respect for the law (although some things that he did would not pass moral muster today, and probably didn't back then either). Webster focused mainly on property rights and admiralty law, but also delved into criminal affairs and economic concerns. His depth as a lawyer was about as wide as his knowledge was deep. It is sort of a wonder that he was not seriously considered for a Supreme Court justiceship himself, or the role of Attorney General (although at that time it was not yet a full-time position).
Webster had a long career in Congress, beginning in the U.S. House as a Congressman from New Hampshire. He was notoriously tardy - almost always arriving late to the start of a Congressional session, and then frequently leaving early too. Sometimes he would leave during a session and return several weeks later after going back to Boston. After a few terms in the House, he left Congress, and focused mostly on his burgeoning law practice by relocating to Boston, only to later on run for Congress from Massachusetts. This smacked of opportunism to me. Webster lived in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, which was fairly Republican (Webster was a Federalist). I think that Webster realized that it would be difficult for him to move up in state or national politics as long as he remained in NH because the Democrats controlled most state offices and had a larger presence than the slowly shrinking Federalist Party did there. But Federalism still reigned Supreme in MA, and by moving to Boston he could attract more legal business and higher-priced clients. That is exactly what happened. Webster became very active in state politics, serving as one of the delegates to the MA Constitutional Convention along with John Adams. I pieced together through the book that Webster knew every President from Adams through Andrew Johnson. That's pretty impressive!
In the mid 1820s Webster was elected to the U.S. Senate by the MA legislature. Outside of two stints as Secretary of State later on, he remained in the Senate for most of the rest of his life. Here he battled it out verbally with Calhoun, Clay, Thomas Hart Benton and other stalwarts. Webster, as befitting his native region, was in favor of a high tariff on imported goods in order to help protect New England manufacturers. This brought him into conflict with many from the South and the West who favored a low tariff due to their reliance on exports of such crops as cotton. Webster devoted much of his time in the Senate to this issue, which did not disappear during his lifetime. Webster had a gift of oratory, and when it was known that he would be giving a speech, people would pack the galleries to hear him, as they did in his famous reply to South Carolina Senator Robert Hayne while debating secession and Unionism.
What were Webster's views on slavery? He was in theory anti-slavery, and never owned any human being. However, he was not especially outspoken about it. And in fact, as time went on, he increasingly placated the South in a misguided effort not to antagonize slaveowners whom he hoped to have support him for the presidency. I thought that Webster did significant damage to his long-term reputation in history by so steadfastly supporting the Compromise of 1850, which among many other things strengthened the Fugitive Slave Law. Webster was serious about this, later going after recalcitrant marshals and prosecutors in the North who dragged their feet on trying to help slaveowners recover runaway enslaved people. Webster felt that the law should be strictly obeyed. He wanted to prosecute Northerners who stood against it by not carrying out their legal responsibilities in enforcing the heinous law. In the slow, inexorable lead-up to the Civil War, Webster was one of many Northern politicians who blamed most of the trouble on antislavery advocates. He considered them dangerous and destructive. While he was not for any Southern state seceding, most of his fire was turned towards Free Soilers and antislavery men. Webster really failed here. And for what? Just so the South could keep offering him no support in his continual quest to the get the Whig presidential nomination? Webster either didn't understand, or didn't want to admit, that he was a regional candidate. His following was largely confined to Massachusetts, with strong pockets of support throughout New England. But outside of there, he never garnered much support. Even though he did appease the South on slavery, he was not with them on the tariff. And in any event, as sectionalism grew during this period, Southerners were much more comfortable with one of their own. Webster for a long time naively thought that the controversy over slavery was overblown. In February 1850 he said (Page 410) "All this agitation, I think, will subside... But the Union is not in danger." Talk about misreading a situation.
Webster was destined to spend most of his career in the minority, as the Whigs did not hold power in Congress. The two Presidential elections that the Whigs won, 1840 and 1848, saw Webster become Secretary of State. First, William Henry Harrison named him to the post. Webster stayed even though Harrison died after only one month in office; Webster choosing to stick it out with the difficult lone wolf John Tyler. Following the death of Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore named him to his old position, and Webster remained at State until his death in late 1852. Both stints lasted roughly a little over two years for Webster. He did manage to conclude a significant treaty with Great Britain in 1842, settling most of the Canadian boundary issues that had long plagued the two countries. Webster eventually resigned as he was not on the same page politically as the independent, petulant Tyler. His time with Fillmore was less successful, especially towards the end due to declining health. Also, in an odd twist, Webster seemed to have little to no qualms about trying for the Whig nomination to the presidency against his own boss, Fillmore. Neither man ended up getting it, but it had to have been awkward.
Baxter is eminently fair in his treatment of Webster, acknowledging his oratorical gifts and significance in history while also pointing out numerous personal and professional flaws. Webster's moral compass seemed to be a bit off-kilter, as he had no problem accepting money and favors from people, especially money. He was someone who - despite his high income - lived beyond his means. He invested heavily (and sometimes foolishly) in land speculation. He continued to buy more and more land, even after he was forced to sell other plots to pay down some debts. Webster had no compunction about his wealthy friends simply subsidizing his income by providing annuities for him. He had twisted financial relationships with other politicians and with Nicholas Biddle, the longtime president of the Bank of the United States. Webster was even counsel for the Bank while voting on its charter in the Senate. Wow! Webster struck me as someone who was woefully out of touch with the common person, to the point that he had little reference to how someone who was not wealthy lived.
Baxter also examines Webster's personal life, spending a few chapters just on that side of him. Webster's first wife, Grace, died relatively young. Webster remarried to a somewhat younger woman. Webster's daughter, Julia, died of tuberculosis. In a cruel twist of fate, on the day of her funeral, the body of his son, Edward, arrived at his house - he had died of typhoid while serving in the War with Mexico. I can't think that there was a worse day in Webster's life than that. I felt bad for him. Baxter does a good job of examining Webster's relations to his friends and family, taking care to point out both the good and the bad.
About the only area that Baxter did not cover was Webster's views on the removal of many Native American tribes from their lands. Granted, none of that happened on Webster's home turf during his lifetime. But he was in the Senate while this was going on. Baxter concludes with a very good final chapter discussing Webster's life overall and his place in history. I appreciated this - I generally find it irritating when a biography of a subject abruptly ends on the date of the person's death. If I could change anything about the book it would be the structure: Baxter organized the chapters by themes rather than chronologically, although the book does move in that direction overall. This made it difficult sometimes to remember just what year the story was in. Also, the chapters themselves contained no breaks within them, something that I do not care for as a reader. Still, this was an enjoyable read about a prominent early American statesman.
Grade: A-
Webster came from modest upbringing, but quickly stuck out as a young man in possession of a keen intellect and capacity for the law. He became a lawyer, and a successful one too. In fact Webster soon was bringing in a sizable income, one almost unfathomable to most Americans of the early 19th century. Webster became an elite attorney, attracting high-profile (and well-paying) clients throughout his life. He argued twenty-four cases in front of the Supreme Court over several decades, and won thirteen of them. That is pretty impressive. In fact, Baxter devotes multiple chapters to Webster's legal career. In his Preface, Baxter states that he will do that, and he does. He considered it fundamental to who Webster was - someone who had utmost respect for the law (although some things that he did would not pass moral muster today, and probably didn't back then either). Webster focused mainly on property rights and admiralty law, but also delved into criminal affairs and economic concerns. His depth as a lawyer was about as wide as his knowledge was deep. It is sort of a wonder that he was not seriously considered for a Supreme Court justiceship himself, or the role of Attorney General (although at that time it was not yet a full-time position).
Webster had a long career in Congress, beginning in the U.S. House as a Congressman from New Hampshire. He was notoriously tardy - almost always arriving late to the start of a Congressional session, and then frequently leaving early too. Sometimes he would leave during a session and return several weeks later after going back to Boston. After a few terms in the House, he left Congress, and focused mostly on his burgeoning law practice by relocating to Boston, only to later on run for Congress from Massachusetts. This smacked of opportunism to me. Webster lived in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, which was fairly Republican (Webster was a Federalist). I think that Webster realized that it would be difficult for him to move up in state or national politics as long as he remained in NH because the Democrats controlled most state offices and had a larger presence than the slowly shrinking Federalist Party did there. But Federalism still reigned Supreme in MA, and by moving to Boston he could attract more legal business and higher-priced clients. That is exactly what happened. Webster became very active in state politics, serving as one of the delegates to the MA Constitutional Convention along with John Adams. I pieced together through the book that Webster knew every President from Adams through Andrew Johnson. That's pretty impressive!
In the mid 1820s Webster was elected to the U.S. Senate by the MA legislature. Outside of two stints as Secretary of State later on, he remained in the Senate for most of the rest of his life. Here he battled it out verbally with Calhoun, Clay, Thomas Hart Benton and other stalwarts. Webster, as befitting his native region, was in favor of a high tariff on imported goods in order to help protect New England manufacturers. This brought him into conflict with many from the South and the West who favored a low tariff due to their reliance on exports of such crops as cotton. Webster devoted much of his time in the Senate to this issue, which did not disappear during his lifetime. Webster had a gift of oratory, and when it was known that he would be giving a speech, people would pack the galleries to hear him, as they did in his famous reply to South Carolina Senator Robert Hayne while debating secession and Unionism.
What were Webster's views on slavery? He was in theory anti-slavery, and never owned any human being. However, he was not especially outspoken about it. And in fact, as time went on, he increasingly placated the South in a misguided effort not to antagonize slaveowners whom he hoped to have support him for the presidency. I thought that Webster did significant damage to his long-term reputation in history by so steadfastly supporting the Compromise of 1850, which among many other things strengthened the Fugitive Slave Law. Webster was serious about this, later going after recalcitrant marshals and prosecutors in the North who dragged their feet on trying to help slaveowners recover runaway enslaved people. Webster felt that the law should be strictly obeyed. He wanted to prosecute Northerners who stood against it by not carrying out their legal responsibilities in enforcing the heinous law. In the slow, inexorable lead-up to the Civil War, Webster was one of many Northern politicians who blamed most of the trouble on antislavery advocates. He considered them dangerous and destructive. While he was not for any Southern state seceding, most of his fire was turned towards Free Soilers and antislavery men. Webster really failed here. And for what? Just so the South could keep offering him no support in his continual quest to the get the Whig presidential nomination? Webster either didn't understand, or didn't want to admit, that he was a regional candidate. His following was largely confined to Massachusetts, with strong pockets of support throughout New England. But outside of there, he never garnered much support. Even though he did appease the South on slavery, he was not with them on the tariff. And in any event, as sectionalism grew during this period, Southerners were much more comfortable with one of their own. Webster for a long time naively thought that the controversy over slavery was overblown. In February 1850 he said (Page 410) "All this agitation, I think, will subside... But the Union is not in danger." Talk about misreading a situation.
Webster was destined to spend most of his career in the minority, as the Whigs did not hold power in Congress. The two Presidential elections that the Whigs won, 1840 and 1848, saw Webster become Secretary of State. First, William Henry Harrison named him to the post. Webster stayed even though Harrison died after only one month in office; Webster choosing to stick it out with the difficult lone wolf John Tyler. Following the death of Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore named him to his old position, and Webster remained at State until his death in late 1852. Both stints lasted roughly a little over two years for Webster. He did manage to conclude a significant treaty with Great Britain in 1842, settling most of the Canadian boundary issues that had long plagued the two countries. Webster eventually resigned as he was not on the same page politically as the independent, petulant Tyler. His time with Fillmore was less successful, especially towards the end due to declining health. Also, in an odd twist, Webster seemed to have little to no qualms about trying for the Whig nomination to the presidency against his own boss, Fillmore. Neither man ended up getting it, but it had to have been awkward.
Baxter is eminently fair in his treatment of Webster, acknowledging his oratorical gifts and significance in history while also pointing out numerous personal and professional flaws. Webster's moral compass seemed to be a bit off-kilter, as he had no problem accepting money and favors from people, especially money. He was someone who - despite his high income - lived beyond his means. He invested heavily (and sometimes foolishly) in land speculation. He continued to buy more and more land, even after he was forced to sell other plots to pay down some debts. Webster had no compunction about his wealthy friends simply subsidizing his income by providing annuities for him. He had twisted financial relationships with other politicians and with Nicholas Biddle, the longtime president of the Bank of the United States. Webster was even counsel for the Bank while voting on its charter in the Senate. Wow! Webster struck me as someone who was woefully out of touch with the common person, to the point that he had little reference to how someone who was not wealthy lived.
Baxter also examines Webster's personal life, spending a few chapters just on that side of him. Webster's first wife, Grace, died relatively young. Webster remarried to a somewhat younger woman. Webster's daughter, Julia, died of tuberculosis. In a cruel twist of fate, on the day of her funeral, the body of his son, Edward, arrived at his house - he had died of typhoid while serving in the War with Mexico. I can't think that there was a worse day in Webster's life than that. I felt bad for him. Baxter does a good job of examining Webster's relations to his friends and family, taking care to point out both the good and the bad.
About the only area that Baxter did not cover was Webster's views on the removal of many Native American tribes from their lands. Granted, none of that happened on Webster's home turf during his lifetime. But he was in the Senate while this was going on. Baxter concludes with a very good final chapter discussing Webster's life overall and his place in history. I appreciated this - I generally find it irritating when a biography of a subject abruptly ends on the date of the person's death. If I could change anything about the book it would be the structure: Baxter organized the chapters by themes rather than chronologically, although the book does move in that direction overall. This made it difficult sometimes to remember just what year the story was in. Also, the chapters themselves contained no breaks within them, something that I do not care for as a reader. Still, this was an enjoyable read about a prominent early American statesman.
Grade: A-
Displaying 1 of 1 review