Webster remained opposed to much of Jackson’s agenda, however, especially the president’s plan to destroy the Second National Bank of the United States. Ever the populist, Jackson distrusted the bank, believing that the consolidation of financial power into the institution harmed small farmers who depended on the whims of the bankers to finance their operations. Webster thought that the benefits of a strong banking system far outweighed the risks of consolidated power, and he spoke out on this point repeatedly. Jackson won that fight, although a national recession in 1837 indicated that Webster’s argument probably was correct if judged on economic grounds.69
Webster’s growing stature made him a contender for presidential politics during the 1830s. He sought the nomination of a new political party, the Whigs, in 1836, but he could not garner sufficient support. He might have become a vice presidential candidate under General William Henry Harrison in 1840, but instead he accepted a position as secretary of state after Harrison won the election. The new president died after only a month in office, leaving his vice president, John Tyler, in the executive office. Webster continued on as secretary of state, despite numerous differences with Tyler.70
Tyler, a former Democrat, had been added as a vice presidential candidate to balance the Harrison ticket, but he was not ideologically aligned with the Whig platform. It soon became apparent that he would resist measures the Whigs had expected Harrison to champion. In particular, Tyler shared Andrew Jackson’s mistrust of the Bank of the United States. Webster thought a compromise bill could be enacted to reestablish the bank but limit the scope of its power. He urged his former congressional colleagues to pass such a bill, but they refused. Tyler vetoed the strong bill presented to him, which outraged the president’s cabinet. Except for Webster, cabinet members resigned en masse to protest the veto. Tyler appreciated Webster’s show of support, especially since the two men seldom agreed on policy, but the decision to remain as secretary of state strained Webster’s standing with other Whigs.71
Facing a recalcitrant Congress and alienated from the Whigs, Tyler became a pariah in Washington. He did what many unpopular presidents do when faced with a stalled domestic agenda: He turned his attention to foreign policy. Among their most pressing issues was a developing crisis with Great Britain over the border between Canada, where the British maintained a presence, and Maine. The secretary of state met with the British envoy, Lord Ashburton, and they agreed on the boundaries in the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, signed in 1842.72
Despite Webster’s show of support when the rest of the cabinet resigned, he and Tyler never developed a close relationship. Their political perspectives were simply too divergent. Leading Whigs also pressured Webster to resign, correctly observing that his continued political viability within the party required his departure. In May 1843, he finally left the administration, explaining that he had satisfied his ambition in the State Department in negotiating the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. It was time to move on to other challenges.73
On the eve of Webster’s departure, the Tyler administration took up the issue of whether Texas should be annexed as part of the United States. The president believed that it should be, despite fears among the antislavery faction of the Whigs that adding new territory would aggravate the question of whether slavery should be extended beyond current boundaries. Freed from his allegiance to the administration, Webster argued against annexation. It became a crucial issue as the 1844 presidential election neared. Henry Clay won the Whig nomination, which made him the party’s leader. Webster had been a faithful party man when he was a Federalist, and now he continued the tradition of fidelity when he was a Whig. He and Clay had seldom agreed on policy, but Webster came out strongly for Clay in 1844. To Webster’s disappointment, Democrat James K. Polk—“Young Hickory,” named for his ties to Old Hickory, Andrew Jackson—won the presidency in a close election.74
Webster had considered retirement when he left the Tyler administration, but he believed he had much left to contribute in his public life. Returning to the Senate in 1845, he remained a strong voice against Polk’s expansionist policies as well as the war with Mexico. As slavery became a key issue, Webster, caught in an untenable position, hedged his bets. His antislavery constituents and colleagues in New England expected him to oppose the spread of the institution as vigorously as possible. Throughout his career, Webster had objected to the peculiar institution; his opposition was no surprise to anyone. For a man who entertained presidential designs, however, he sought to mollify southerners, to the extent possible. Setting aside his objections to human bondage, he refused to condemn southern leaders, making him a Cotton Whig, the faction seeking to protect economic interests, rather than a Conscience Whig who believed that opposing slavery was the paramount issue.75
Owing to his prominence, Webster was always a serious presidential contender in the Whig Party, but he faced a new, formidable opponent. He had always known that Henry Clay was a presidential rival, but General Zachary Taylor emerged in 1848. Old Rough and Ready was a hero of the Mexican War, and he capitalized on his newfound fame. Although he was not well known as a Whig, Taylor’s popularity and newcomer status made him an attractive candidate. Taylor eventually won the party’s nomination.76
By 1848, the Whigs were a dying political party. Taylor, nominally a Whig, captured the presidency, but he was hardly an exemplar of Whig orthodoxy. The more zealous antislavery Whigs could not stomach Taylor, and so they broke away to join forces with antislavery Democrats, the so-called Barnburners, to form the Free Soil Party. Webster once again was caught in the cross fire. He might have joined forces with the Free Soilers—after all, he had promised never to support Taylor—but he reluctantly cast his lot with the Whigs.
Despite throwing his support to his party’s nominee, Webster was not a Taylor man. He could not expect a political reward in exchange for his support. Indeed, he was closed out of the new administration’s deliberations on patronage. Godlike Daniel appeared to be anything but like a god. He was a man without a party, still influential, but far past his prime.77
Within a year of President Taylor stepping into office, a new crisis emerged. As Webster had feared, the addition of new territories to the United States directly raised that nagging question of slavery, a question that had lingered for decades, but now worsened. All the talk of nullification and secession had raised the political temperature, and it appeared that North and South, after all the threats and bluster, might come to blows.
Henry Clay, the Great Pacificator, tried one last time to mollify all parties. In January 1850, he offered a legislative package to resolve the current crisis. No one believed it would settle the issue indefinitely, but perhaps it could preserve the peace a while longer. The Compromise of 1850 sought to balance interests between slaveholding and nonslaveholding states. Extreme partisans on each side rejected the measures as a violation of deeply held principles.78
Webster’s support was crucial. Aside from Henry Clay and possibly President Taylor, he was the leading Whig in the United States. He resolved to make his opinion known on the floor of the Senate, as he had on so many memorable occasions. On March 7, 1850, spectators crowded into the chamber to hear the great man’s words. Anticipation was high. Webster did not possess the singular power to determine the fate of the legislation, but he could sway the vote at the margins.79
He opened his three-and-a-half-hour speech with one of his most stirring rhetorical flourishes. “Mr. President,” he said, referring to the Senate’s presiding officer, “I wish to speak to-day, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American, and a member of the Senate of the United States.” It was a dangerous time, and something must be done to soothe the fears of all men in every region. “It is not to be denied that we live in the midst of strong agitations, and are surrounded by very considerable dangers to our institutions and our government,” he said. “The imprisoned winds are let loose. The East,