The politicians of the South, whether they were the mouthpieces of the ideas and passions of their constituents, or were, as Webster probably thought, more or less responsible for their foolishness and bitterness, were ever eager to precipitate a conflict, which Webster was as eager to prevent, or at least to postpone.  It was fortunate for the North, that the inevitable conflict did not come in 1850, when the free States were unprepared for it.  Ten years of discussion and preparation were allowed; when the war broke out, it found the North in a position to meet and eventually to overcome the enemies of the Union; and the Constitution, not as it was, but as it is, now represents a form of government which promises to be permanent; for after passing through its baptism of fire and blood, the Constitution contains nothing which is not in harmony with any State government founded on the principle of equal rights which it guarantees, and is proof against all attacks but those which may proceed from the extremes of human folly and wickedness.  But that, before the civil war, it was preserved so long under conditions which constantly threatened it with destruction, is due in a considerable degree to the circumstance that it found in Daniel Webster its poet as well as its “expounder.”

In conclusion it may be said that the style of Webster is pre-eminently distinguished by manliness.  Nothing little, weak, whining, or sentimental can be detected in any page of the six volumes of his works.  A certain strength and grandeur of personality is prominent in all his speeches.  When he says “I,” or “my,” he never appears to indulge in the bravado of self-assertion, because the words are felt to express a positive, stalwart, almost colossal manhood, which had already been implied in the close-knit sentences in which he embodied his statements and arguments.  He is an eminent instance of the power which character communicates to style.  Though evidently proud, self-respecting, and high-spirited, he is ever above mere vanity and egotism.  Whenever he gives emphasis to the personal pronoun the reader feels that he had as much earned the right to make his opinion an authority, as he had earned the right to use the words he employs to express his ideas and sentiments.  Thus, in the celebrated Smith Will trial, his antagonist, Mr. Choate, quoted a decision of Lord Chancellor Camden.  In his reply, Webster argued against its validity as though it were merely a proposition laid down by Mr. Choate.  “But it is not mine, it is Lord Camden’s” was the instant retort.  Webster paused for half a minute, and then, with his eye fixed on the presiding judge, he replied:  “Lord Camden was a great judge; he is respected by every American, for he was on our side in the Revolution; but, may it please your honor, I differ from my Lord Camden.”  There was hardly a lawyer in the United States who could have made such a statement without exposing himself