Constitution, and that these great interests had been crippled and abused
by the departure from Washington's policy. He developed, with great force,
the principal and the most unanswerable argument of his party, that the
navy had been neglected and decried because it was a Federalist scheme,
when a navy was what we wanted above all things, and especially when we
were drifting into a maritime conflict. He argued strongly in favor of a
naval war, and measures of naval defence, instead of wasting our resources
by an invasion of Canada. So far he went strictly with his party, merely
invigorating and enforcing their well-known principles. But when he came to
defining the proper limits of opposition to the war he modified very
essentially the course prescribed by advanced Federalist opinions. The
majority of that party in New England were prepared to go to the very edge
of the narrow legal line which divides constitutional opposition from
treasonable resistance. They were violent, bitter, and uncompromising in
their language and purposes. From this Mr. Webster was saved by his breadth
of view, his clear perceptions, and his intense national feeling. He says
on this point:--

"With respect to the war in which we are now involved, the course
which our principles require us to pursue cannot be doubtful. It is
now the law of the land, and as such we are bound to regard it.
Resistance and insurrection form no part of our creed. The
disciples of Washington are neither tyrants in power nor rebels
out. If we are taxed to carry on this war we shall disregard
certain distinguished examples and shall pay. If our personal
services are required we shall yield them to the precise extent of
our constitutional liability. At the same time the world may be
assured that we know our rights and shall exercise them. We shall
express our opinions on this, as on every measure of the
government,--I trust without passion, I am certain without fear. By