uted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto
no such miserable interrogatory as 'What is all this worth?' nor those
other words of delusion and folly 'Liberty first and Union afterward';
but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing
on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land,
and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear
to every American heart--'Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and
inseparable!'"

Undaunted by the flood of eloquence that for four hours held the
Senate spellbound, Hayne replied in a long speech that touched the
zenith of his own masterful powers of argumentation. He conceded
nothing. Each State, he still maintained, is "an independent
sovereignty"; the Union is based upon a compact; and every party to
the compact has a right to interpret for itself the terms of the
agreement by which all are bound together. In a short, crisp speech,
traversing the main ground which he had already gone over.

Webster exposed the inconsistencies and dangers involved in this
argument; and the debate was over. The Foote resolution, long since
forgotten, remained on the Senate calendar four months and was then
tabled. Webster went back to his cases; the politicians turned again
to their immediate concerns; the humdrum of congressional business was
resumed; and popular interest drifted to other things.

Both sides were well satisfied with the presentation of their views.
Certainly neither was converted to the position of the other. The
debate served, however, to set before the country with greater
clearness than ever before the two great systems of constitutional
interpretation that were struggling for mastery, and large numbers of
men whose ideas had been hazy were now led to adopt thoughtfully
either the one body of opinions or the other. The country was not yet
ready to follow the controversy to the end which Webster clearly
foresaw--civil war. But each side treasured its vitalized and enriched
arguments for use in a more strenuous day.

Advantage in the great discussion lay partly with Hayne and partly
with his brilliant antagonist. On the whole, the facts of history were
on the side of Hayne. Webster attempted to argue from the intent of
the framers of the Constitution and from early opinion concerning the
nature of the Union; but a careful appraisal of the evidence hardly
bears out his contentions. On economic matters also,