he closing year of his life, when
looking retrospectively, with judgment undisturbed by any extraneous
influence, he uttered views of the Government which must stand the test
of severest scrutiny and defy the storms of agitation, for they are
founded on the rock of truth. In letters written and addresses delivered
during the Administration of Mr. Fillmore, he repeatedly applies to the
Constitution the term "compact," which, in 1833, he had so vehemently
repudiated. In his speech at Capon Springs, Virginia, in 1851, he says:

"If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution
intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing year
after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any
longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were,
deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose, to disregard one
part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its
other obligations?...

"How absurd it is to suppose that, when different parties enter
into a compact for certain purposes, either can disregard any
one provision, and expect, nevertheless, the other to observe
the rest!...

"I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that, if the
Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry
into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the
restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy,
the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A
bargain can not be broken on one side, and still bind the other
side."[87]

The principles which have been set forth in the foregoing chapters,
although they had come to be considered as peculiarly Southern, were not
sectional in their origin. In the beginning and earlier years of our
history they were cherished as faithfully and guarded as jealously in
Massachusetts and New Hampshire as in Virginia or South Carolina. It was
in these principles that I was nurtured. I have frankly proclaimed them
during my whole life, always contending in the Senate of the United
States against what I believed to be the mistaken construction of the
Constitution taught by Mr. Webster and his adherents. While I honored
the genius of that great man, and held friendly personal relations with
him, I considered his doctrines on these points--or rather the doctrines
advocated by him during the most conspicuous and influential portions of
his public career--to be mischi