In the reply to Calhoun he devoted his strength chiefly to these topics, and, meeting his keen antagonist on the latter's own chosen ground, he put himself at a disadvantage.

In the actual present and in the steady course of development, the facts were wholly with Mr.
Webster.

Whatever the people of the United States understood the Constitution to mean in 1789, there can be no question that a majority in 1833 regarded it as a fundamental law, and not as a compact--an opinion which has now become universal.

But it was quite another thing to argue that what the Constitution had come to mean was what it meant when it was adopted.

The identity of meaning at these two periods was the proposition which Mr.Webster undertook to maintain, and he upheld it as well and as plausibly as the nature of the case admitted.