His reasoning was close and vigorous; but he could not destroy the theory of the Constitution as held by leaders and people in 1789, or reconcile the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions or the Hartford Convention with the fundamental-law doctrines.
Nevertheless, it would be an error to suppose that because the facts of history were against Mr.Webster in these particulars, this able, ingenious, and elaborate argument was thrown away.

It was a fitting supplement and complement to the reply to Hayne.

It reiterated the national principles, and furnished those whom the statement and demonstration of an existing fact could not satisfy, with an immense magazine of lucid reasoning and plausible and effective arguments.

The reply to Hayne gave magnificent expression to the popular feeling, while that to Calhoun supplied the arguments which, after years of discussion, converted that feeling into a fixed opinion, and made it strong enough to carry the North through four years of civil war.

But in his final speech in this debate Mr.
Webster came back to his original ground, and said, in conclusion, "Shall we have a general government?
Shall we continue the union of States under a _government_ instead of a league?
This vital and all-important question the people will decide." The vital question went to the great popular jury, and they cast aside all historical premises and deductions, all legal subtleties and refinements, and gave their verdict on the existing facts.
The world knows what that verdict was, and will never forget that it was largely due to the splendid eloquence of Daniel Webster when he defended the cause of nationality against the slave-holding separatists of South Carolina.
While this great debate was in progress, and Mr.Webster and the faithful adherents of Jackson were pushing the "Force Bill" to a vote, Mr.Clay was making every effort to carry the compromise tariff.