From the opening of the discussion Webster's object had been to "force
from Hayne or his supporters a full, frank, clear-cut statement of
what nullification meant; and then, by opposing to this doctrine the
Constitution as he understood it, to show its utter inadequacy and
fallaciousness either as constitutional law or as a practical working
scheme."[10] In the Southerner's _First Reply_ Webster found the
statement that he wanted; he now proceeded to demolish it. Many pages
of print would be required to reproduce, even in substance, the
arguments which he employed. Yet the fundamentals are so simple that
they can be stated in a dozen lines. Sovereignty, under our form of
government, resides in the people of the United States. The exercise
of the powers of sovereignty is entrusted by the people partly to the
National Government and partly to the state Governments. This division
of functions is made in the federal Constitution. If differences
arise, as they must, as to the precise nature of the division, the
decision rests--not with the state legislatures, as Hayne had
said--but with the federal courts, which were established in part for
that very purpose. No State has a right to "nullify" a federal law; if
one State has this right, all must have it, and the result can only be
conflicts that would plunge the Government into chaos and the people
ultimately into war. If the Constitution is not what the people want,
they can amend it; but as long as it stands, the Constitution and all
lawful government under it must be obeyed.

The incomparably eloquent peroration penetrated to the heart of the
whole matter. The logic of nullification was disunion. Fine theories
might be spun and dazzling phrases made to convince men otherwise, but
the hard fact would remain. Hayne, Calhoun, and their like were
playing with fire. Already they were boldly weighing "the chances of