question. Webster's decision was instantaneous: Hayne must be
answered--and answered while his arguments were still hot.

"Seeing the true grounds of the Constitution thus attacked," the New
Englander subsequently explained at a public dinner in New York, "I
raised my voice in its favor, I must confess, with no preparation or
previous intention. I can hardly say that I embarked in the contest
from a sense of duty. It was an instantaneous impulse of inclination,
not acting against duty, I trust, but hardly waiting for its
suggestions. I felt it to be a contest for the integrity of the
Constitution, and I was ready to enter into it, not thinking, or
caring, personally, how I came out." In a speech characterized by
Henry Cabot Lodge as "one of the most effective retorts, one of the
strongest pieces of destructive criticism, ever uttered in the
Senate," Webster now defended his section against the charges of
selfishness, jealousy, and snobbishness that had been brought against
it, and urged that the Senate and the people be made to hear no more
utterances, such as those of Hayne, tending "to bring the Union into
discussion, as a mere question of present and temporary expediency."

The debate was now fairly started, and the word quickly went round
that a battle of the giants was impending. Each foeman was worthy of
the other's steel. Hayne was representative of all that was proudest
and best in the South Carolina of his day. "Nature had lavished on
him," says Benton, "all the gifts which lead to eminence in public,
and to happiness in private, life." He was tall, well-proportioned,
graceful; his features were clean-cut and expressive of both
intelligence and amiability; his manner was cordial and unaffected;
his mind was vigorous and his industry unremitting. Furthermore, he
was an able lawyer, a fluent orator, a persuasive debater, an adroit