Mr.
Webster's speech, on the other hand, in respect to eloquence, was decidedly inferior to the masterpiece of 1830.

Mr.Curtis says, "Perhaps there is no speech ever made by Mr.Webster that is so close in its reasoning, so compact, and so powerful." To the first two qualities we can readily assent, but that it was equally powerful may be doubted.

So long as Mr.
Webster confined himself to defending the Constitution as it actually was and as what it had come to mean in point of fact, he was invincible.

Just in proportion as he left this ground and attempted to argue on historical premises that it was a fundamental law, he weakened his position, for the historical facts were against him.

In the reply to Hayne he touched but slightly on the historical, legal, and theoretical aspects of the case, and he was overwhelming.