The Great Triumvirate: Webster, Clay, and Calhoun

by Merrill D. Peterson

Enormously powerful, intensely ambitious, the very personifications of their respective regions--Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun represented the foremost statemen of their age. In the decades preceding the Civil War, they dominated American congressional politics as no other figures have. Now Merrill D. Peterson, one of our most gifted historians, brilliantly re-creates the lives and times of these great men in this monumental collective biography.
Arriving on the national scene at the onset of the War of 1812 and departing political life during the ordeal of the Union in 1850-52, Webster, Clay, and Calhoun opened--and closed--a new era in American politics. In outlook and style, they represented startling Webster, the Federalist and staunch New England defender of the Union; Clay, the "war hawk" and National Rebublican leader from the West; Calhoun, the youthful nationalist who became the foremost spokesman of the South and slavery. They came together in the Senate for the first time in 1832, united in their opposition of Andrew Jackson, and thus gave birth to the idea of the "Great Triumvirate." Entering the history books, this idea survived the test of time because these men divided so much of American politics between them for so long.
Peterson brings to life the great events in which the Triumvirate figured so prominently, including the debates on Clay's American System, the Missouri Compromise, the Webster-Hayne debate, the Bank War, the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, the annexation of Texas, and the Compromise of 1850. At once a sweeping narrative and a penetrating study of non-presidential leadership, this book offers an indelible picture of this conservative era in which statesmen viewed the preservation of the legacy of free government inherited from the Founding Fathers as their principal mission. In fascinating detail, Peterson demonstrates how precisely Webster, Clay, and Calhoun exemplify three facets of this national mind.

Genres: History, American History, Biography, Politics, Nonfiction

582 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1987

About the author

Merrill Daniel Peterson was a history professor at the University of Virginia. After spending two years at Kansas State University, Peterson earned his B.A. at the University of Kansas and then took his Ph.D. in the history of American civilization at Harvard University. Before teaching at the University of Virginia, he taught at Brandeis and Princeton.

Reviews

[Michael Trapani · Rating 5 out of 5]

The five stars comes with an understanding of the genre of the book. This is a straight up political history. You will not find any discussion on societal and cultural forces at work during the period covered (roughly 1810-1850). This may turn off people who prefer ground up history focusing on stories of ordinary people. So if this type of history is not your thing, you can safely pass this book over. But, as a political history, it is fantastic.

Peterson clearly focuses on Clay, Calhoun, and Webster but because the trio factored prominently in almost every political debate and development of the era, the book could really be titled, A Political History of the United States: 1810-1850. Peterson gets deep into the weeds in his coverage of the era. It’s heavy on the debates that took place in the House and Senate and among the members of the various cabinets, as all three men spent time in the cabinet at different points. Peterson seems to have a soft spot for Clay, if I had to pick one. He criticizes all three at times, but Clay seems to get off the lightest and Peterson mentions several times that Clay was “right” about certain things. That said, I think he treats all three fairly and hits Calhoun appropriately for his racism despite the age (30+ years) of the book.

Some things to be aware of: like I said above, it’s a deep political analysis of the era with just one chapter off towards the end that covers the personal lives of the trio. At 500 pages, it may be daunting for some readers. Additionally, Peterson assumes the reader has some background knowledge of the era. He occasionally brings up bills, events, etc., as they relate to a certain topic he’s covering without really explaining them. There are also many references to Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece that may require a quick google search to make sense of. (Webster’s invective exceeded that of Cicero, for example.) These are not reasons to avoid the book, just things to know going in. If you enjoy old fashioned political history and have a certain background understanding of the era, I highly recommend this book.

[Aaron Million · Rating 4 out of 5]

Between the revolutionary generation of the founders, and Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, the second generation statesmen of Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John Calhoun loomed large over the country. These three men dominated Congressional politics throughout the first half of the 19th century. And politics in general (with an acknowledgment to Andrew Jackson, of course as he was the one dominant President during this period). And if you were talking about congressional politics, then they were the dominant figures. The three men represented the different sections of the country: Webster – New England; Clay – the West; Calhoun – the South. These regional differences were both their strengths and their weaknesses.

Merrill Peterson has undertaken to write about all three men, and he does a good job of it. You might think that there would be a tendency, in such a project, by the author to favor one of the men over the other two. That is not the case here, as Peterson devotes equal time and measure to all three men, and does not play favorites. He examines and explains why all three were such prominent figures of their time, and also liberally applies criticism where it is due. And believe me, there is plenty of criticism due these three.

Of the three, Clay was the most well-known, and really the only one that truly had a national reputation. Even today, if you mention these three men to somebody, let’s face it most likely nobody would know who they are. But if someone did know who one of them was, it would almost certainly be Clay. The exception would be if the person was from South Carolina (Calhoun) or was from Massachusetts or New Hampshire (Webster grew up in the latter but made most of his career in the former). All three had their admirers, but Clay probably had the most of all. That would include a young Abraham Lincoln.

There are several themes that actually bound all three of these men together, other than their long congressional and cabinet service. Two themes stuck out at me. One, all three men at one point or another needed the generosity of their friends to be able to continue to live the lifestyles that they lived. Webster was the most glaring example of this, with several times throughout his life his friends needing to come up with funds to pay for him to have the nice things that he wanted. The other theme, is that all three had a deep desire (and long-standing one that was never to be fulfilled) to be President. This desire never really went away with any of them, even with Webster, all the way up until his death hoping that he would become President.

Peterson not only covers the three lives of the men, but also the difficult times that they lived in. Some of this is to the detriment of the book, because a few sections get really bogged down with my new discussions about the tariff. I understand why Peterson put this in here, But boy it could be a slog at times trying to get through this stuff. And the other major issue, obviously, was slavery. And that issue was ultimately not solved by these three men, nor by anyone else in their lifetimes. Clay was known as the great compromiser, and he did fashion several large compromises throughout his long career, notably the Missouri compromise, the tariff compromise of 1833, and then the compromise of 1850. But none of these were enough to ultimately save the Union.

I did enjoy Peterson’s observations on some of the Presidents that popped up throughout this book. On page 85 for example, he refers to James Monroe as “a lackluster figure.“ On page 248, writing about John Quincy Adams, he says that Adams was left with “…only the career of a gadfly before him.“ This was while Adams was in Congress, so I can’t quite agree with Peterson there as Adams had a distinguished career in the House. Much more though I liked his comment about James K Polk on page 418. He referred to Polk, as “a narrow, secretive, lumpish, and a colorless man“. Agreed!

While I mainly agreed on his analysis and observations of the three protagonists, I do disagree with his view on Adams and Clay in 1824-1825, which Andrew Jackson referred to derisively as “the corrupt bargain“. This was due to Clay throwing his votes to Adams in the House of Representatives, basically giving Adams the presidency over Jackson. It has seemed pretty apparent to me that there was a deal between the two: even if it was not officially or verbally made, it was certainly understood that if Clay helped Adams out, then Adams would let Clay be Secretary of State. And that is what did end up happening. But Peterson does not buy that, and calls Clay “innocent“ (page 130) of any type of dealmaking or corrupted bargaining.

There are two other things that bothered me about the book. One, on page 90, Peterson refers to Native Americans as “savages“ when talking about the Indian removal policies in the 1830s. I would have hoped that by the 1980s we had gotten past that. And then also, and I really don’t know why this would be, but whenever he mentioned the country of Colombia, he spelled it “Columbia”, as in District of Columbia. I would think that error would not get past both him and the editor.

But Peterson masterfully alternates between following all three men throughout their long careers. He shows how Calhoun goes from being an ardent nationalist to a sectionalist, and then at the end he is basically wanting to have the South secede over the issue of slavery. He shows how Webster sacrifices his morals towards the end of his life, and puts a permanent stain on his record, when he sides with the South on the Fugitive Slave Law. And he reviews Clay’s distinguished senatorial career, as well as his early time as Speaker of the House, and his unsuccessful stint as Secretary of State.

This is a very good book, but it is also a dense read with incredibly long chapters, few breaks within the chapters, and small print. And some of the issues - like the tariff - can be difficult to follow along and grasp today. I’m not saying that I was always able to keep up with that despite reading in this period for sometime now. I did enjoy the juxtaposition of the three men, as their careers are so intertwined with each other. It is sort of uncanny how they all came into Congress around the same time, they all held Cabinet level positions at one point or another, they all wanted the presidency, and they all died at roughly the same time. Unfortunately, despite their many rhetorical gifts and talents, they could not prevent the country from fighting a bloody Civil War less than a decade later.

Grade: B+

[Andrew Canfield · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Great Triumvirate is an ambitious work, attempting to chronicle the lives of the three greatest statesmen the legislative branch has ever seen. The book delves into the lives of Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John Calhoun, three men from three different sections of the country who had outsize impacts on the development of 19th century America.

This book is for anyone who enjoys reading about the intricacies of the U.S. political system; it goes deep into issues like tariffs and nullification, at times getting into esoteric detail regarding the sectionalist fights of the 1830s and 1840s. It analyzes the lives of all three men, looking at how they all went their own way from time to time depending on the divergence of the needs of the portion of the country they represented (Webster the Northeast, Clay the West, and Calhoun the South).

The portions on Calhoun trying to desperately control the breakaway factions in South Carolina while at the same time attempting to steer them in a more centrist direction were particularly compelling. The Triumvirate's overlap with the Jackson administration made for compelling reading as well.

The Great Triumvirate comes down fairly hard on Calhoun and Webster at times (nor does it overlook Clay's character flaws). Yet it weaves together a book on history that brings to light critical moments in the 19th century, such as the Missouri Compromise, the near-secession of South Carolina over The Tariff of Abominations, the fight over the acquisition of Texas, and the sides taken in lesser known disputes like Rhode Island's Dorr Rebellion.

A detailed, compelling book by Peterson and one I recommend for those interested in delving into the evolution of the legislative branch.

-Andrew Canfield Shreveport, La.

[Eric Atkisson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well researched and written, but a bit of a dense, challenging slog at times. The book is less a biography of Calhoun, Clay, and Webster than a detailed chronicle of the difficult crises and challenges they navigated, as senators, during their decades of public service. The picture of each man that emerges is understandably complicated. At the end of the day they were not so different than most politicians, especially in their ambitions and egos, though their oratorical and intellectual abilities were of a much higher order--as was, in the case of Clay and Webster, their willingness to embrace compromise and conciliation in pursuit of a higher good. The book is worth reading for those with an interest in early 19th-century American history and especially the political and sectional issues that led, within a decade of the triumvirate's deaths, to secession and civil war.

[SonnyK247 · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for all historians!

[Daniel Ligon · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Great Triumvirate is a fascinating read for those who wish to get a better understanding of American politics in the 1800s. As a triple biography of Webster, Clay, and Calhoun, this book wasn't great. It didn't include enough information about their early lives, their families are only given a cursory treatment, and the biographical material isn't presented in a very interesting manner anyway. But where this book shines is in its treatment of the political maneuvering of these three men. Clay, Webster, and Calhoun dominated American politics from 1812-1852 in a way that few men have ever matched. The impact that these three had on the development of American political history puts them on a very short list of America's most influential politicians (in my opinion, people like Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and FDR). These three reminded me of Alexander Hamilton in particular in that, while none of them ever became president, they impacted their nation more than many presidents ever did.

Clay, the Great Compromiser, was the ultimate politician who could never quite make it to the top but was always a force to be reckoned with. Webster, the Great Orator, was a flawed genius whose personal shortcomings held him back from the success he could have achieved. Nevertheless, Clay and Webster united to save the Union on multiple occasions. Calhoun, in my opinion, was a monster, at least later in life. While personally moral, he followed his political principles to radical extremes, and his influence led to the South embracing slavery (Calhoun quote on slavery: "It is a good...a great good.") and destroying the Union.

As I've been reading through presidential biographies in order, I felt that I could not adequately understand this period in American history without investing some time reading about Clay, Webster, and Calhoun. I'm glad I did. While dry at times, this book is invaluable for anyone who wants to study American politics from 1812-1852. I highly recommend it!

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Great Triumvirate paints a rich picture of the political life in the early 1800's. The lives of Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun and Daniel Webster would shape the course of politics during the first half of the 1800's. These men would pick up where the founding fathers left off and define what it would mean to be American. They represented their sections of the countries but each would bow to the political realities of the time. In the end they were so good at representing their sections that their efforts to achieve the presidency would be met with failure. Henry Clay "the great compromiser" was a tyrant of the Senate and his political domination was impressive in preventing an outbreak of the civil war. While from the South Calhoun was an astute political observer who worked to preserve the institution of slavery. Daniel Webster as the fiery orator from the North was the consummate constitutionalists who the abolitionists hoped to have on their side. These three would "rule" the United States through their congressional domination like the triumvirates of Rome. The interaction between the three was not as great as I expected and more often than not they were working at cross purposes. The political pandering that grows out of this time period (especially with regard to Calhoun) sets the stage for the political discourse that we see emerging in the United States today. The election of 1848 painted here bears remarkable parallels to the 2008 presidential election that is shaping up. For those who want an understanding of our political history this is an essential book to read. These three men defined the next evolution in American government and this is the best book to show how they worked against and with each other to achieve the union.

[Barry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book on 3 extraordinary American statesmen of the first half of the 19th century. What strong personalities! A great inside view of the political processes (quite ugly even back then) and the sectional tensions then threatening the Union. Not an easy read but worth the effort. We definitely do not always elect our best leaders to the Presidency. It is good to see appropriate biographical attention dedicated to these 3 giants 150 years after their passing.

[Josh Liller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Extensive but clunky three-way biography of three famous "Age Of Jackson" politicians. I didn't find any particular fault with the information presented, but I did find plenty of fault with the writing. It was too often dry and suffered from overlong sentences and paragraphs.

[Isabella · Rating 4 out of 5]

“His message was simple and direct: “Our Federal Union: It must be preserved.” The vice president was next. With trembling hand, Calhoun held up his glass and declared, “The Union: Next to our Liberty the most dear.” This is my favorite scene in this book--dramatic, bold, and daring.
I am not as familiar with American history during the 19th century as I am with the British one, but it is not difficult to understand, as the political systems in the two countries are similar (or maybe because I am reading the APUSH textbook). The author did justice to the three titans of American politics and smoothly interwoven narration, comments, speeches, and anecdotes. Opening with the Twelfth Congress, this book pressed me into the ardent spirit of the war hawks: “What are we to gain by war? What are we not to lose by peace? Commerce, character, a nation’s best treasure, honor!” War and peace, Union and states, abolition and slavery, tariff and free trade--the book is riddled with the clashes of interests, rivalry of power, and debates on ideologies of the three talented and ambitious statesmen.
Henry Clay impressed me first because he was often compared with the British statesman Henry Brougham, and with good reasons. Both were known for their gambling spirit, eloquent oration, sharp wit in conversation, and great ambitions, though neither of them reached the top of the greasy pole. Greatness is always the first word that comes to my mind when thinking of Henry Clay, a statesman who shaped an era. For Godlike Daniel, I was attracted most by his oration, which often prompted me to read it aloud when no one was around. Conservatism was the dominant motif in his political life, but his democratic capitalism seemed to me a bit different from the other conservatives at that time. In addition, his Burkian ideas and defense of the Constitution sounded quite English. Calhoun’s conservatism was more familiar to me, for he shared the heritage of the Old Republicanism partly with figures like Randolph of Roanoke, and his philosophy could be traced from Aristotle to John Adams.
Another interesting point is that I was often surprised at the strict moral codes in America compared with that of Britain. It is inconceivable that a Peggy Eaton affair could take place in Europe.

[Jeff Jamba · Rating 4 out of 5]

I decided to throw this in the mix of reading a presidential bio for each president in chronological order. The role of these three men loomed larger than many of the presidents of their time, and it would give a fuller picture of this period.

The Great Triumvirate is a comprehensive review of how these political statesmen’s lives served as a reflection of national tensions increasing over the issue of how slavery and the union could continue.

This read is dense in many parts (tariffs, tariffs and more tariffs!) while the interactions between Clay, Calhoun and Webster shine the most.

It’s not a read for everyone as you do have to slog through some dry sections, but the reward is getting a fair look at each of these key figures from the 19th century and how they spoke for and shaped the country for both good and ill.

[Stan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent snapshot of the age leading to the Civil War

This is a dense book full of history comprising the time of Andrew Jackson to the decade before the Civil War. These three characters, The Great Triumvirate, span this period with their influence and this book is a fantastic read to those who wish to understand the context of legislation that eventually lead to the South’s secession.

[margrave · Rating 4 out of 5]

you have to have an intense appreciation for this period & love of the game to really truly enjoy this, as it sometimes goes into the real nitty-gritty that borderlines on dense, and thankfully i fit that niche and well… i had a lot of fun! very in-depth. i love learning all aspects even if it is.. somewhat not necessary!

i do agree that prior knowledge of some of the events + bills + people + etc is.. Needed LAWL

[Brian E. · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Great Triumvirate was a great read! This very detailed book was probably one of the most detailed books I have read. I have read biographies about Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun, but this book went into more detail about the political ins and outs of these 3 men. I do recommend this book.

[Jeremy Perron · Rating 4 out of 5]

In my earlier review of the Last Crusade I discussed how often unsuccessful presidents are in many respects successful statesmen. This also holds true for even those great statesmen (and stateswomen) that fall short of the presidential honor. My home state of Maine's Ed Muskie would clearly qualify as a great statesman in the eyes of most Mainers. Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun were three of the most prominent men of their era. Each had a mass following in their respective region: Webster the Northeast, Clay the West, and Calhoun the South.

Despite their large followings none of these men would ever reach the highest point in American politics, to be President. Like Muskie, each one these statesmen would become Secretary of State and Webster would be hold that post twice. At the start of the Republic good service in that office almost guaranteed the presidency[1]. Calhoun would become the Vice President, and Clay, among the three, would have the best chance of winning the coveted office, but all would fail.
John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster

This book, covering political careers of all three, does a fairly good job of its task. Although it can get convoluted at times, reading a duel biography is hard enough a trio-biography is very difficult. However, the author does a good job staying on task. There are moments where Peterson's clear worship of these three gets a bit nauseating.

"In 1832, when they came together in the Senate for the first time and coalesced in opposition to the president, Andrew Jackson, the idea of `The Great Triumvirate' was born. It was the offspring of the feverish Jacksonian imagination, for the prospect was very small of these master spirits--Webster, Clay, Calhoun--uniting in power like the famed Roman triumvirs who ruled after Caesar's death. Yet had they become a triumvirate in fact, what worlds they might have conquered!" (p.5)

Clay and Webster, in my eyes, have very positive legacies. There were things that they did and positions that they took that I strongly disagree with--the Fugitive Slave Act as part of the Compromise of 1850, for example--but over all I believe the two were positive forces in our nation's history. However, if one would take a more position, that person could argue all Clay and Webster really did was delay important issues repeatedly to the next generation instead of dealing with it themselves. I think that Clay and Webster did the best they could with the situation that they were given.

The third member however is a different story. Generally speaking I tend to judge historical figures by the standards of their own time not ours. If I did the later, and was honest with myself, I would have to say everyone who ever made major decisions in the world was evil until I enter High School then it was just most of them. However, in American history, there are four historical figures that I completely despise and John C. Calhoun is one of them[2].

I find absolutely no redeemable traits in Calhoun. The only nice thing I can say about the man was if I had died in 1823 his death would have gone down as a tragic loss of a young great statesman. Unfortunately, he lived into the 1850s and became the champion of all that was wrong with America at that time: slavery, nullification, and secession. An American villain if there ever was one.

"And so Webster, Clay, and Calhoun, the legitimate successors of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, never attained the presidency. When the last of this `second race of giants' passed away in 1852 nothing was left to challenge the sway of Lilliputians. The republic lost its glory--the regalia of great statesmen." (p.6)

I totally disagree with the above statement. I am sorry but there were plenty of great statesmen to follow them. I really do not feel these three were Founders' natural successors. Do not get me wrong they had their accomplishments. Their end, however, was not the end of great statesmen. In fact if you read Team of Rivals you can see the next generation of leaders was, in many ways, superior to this group.

This book can be a very tough read so I would only recommended if you really love history and the time period. In closing I am a little reminded of King William III of England and Holland who led coalitions against King Louis XIV of France. King William might have been the thorn in King Louis' side, but William III lived in the age of King Louis XIV. Clay, Webster, and Calhoun may have liked to be known as the Triumvirate, but they were just players in the Age of Jackson.

[1] Or in John Marshall's case the Chief Justice post.
[2] The others are Rodger Taney, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and George Wallace.

[Tom DeMarco · Rating 4 out of 5]

Three great patriots of the 19th century. All contended for the presidency and all failed. Instead we ended up with non-entities like Harrison, Van Buren, Tyler, Taylor, Polk, and Buchanan. And at least one dangerous fellow named Jackson. This book is almost a primer on American values . . . and an upsetting reminder of how our values are often subverted.

[Mike Horne · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wow! I finally finished this book. If you are interested in the detailed machinations of 19th century antebellum congressional politics, this book is for you! Webster, Clay, and Calhoun were the most important politicians of 1814-1850 (except maybe Andrew Jackson--and he is just a supporting actor in this book). This book presents them with all their warts. I am not sure I am going to buy his view on Calhoun. I always thought Calhoun was one of the great American philosophers (my favorite professor Ross Lence from U of H taught that). However in this book he is accused of being too "metaphysical"--not grounded in political reality.

I read this because I graded the US AP question "Compare and contrast the Jacksonian Democratic Party and the Whig Party of the 1830s and 1840s." And I realized I could not give a good explanation of that. Now I can. Four stars if that is what you want. But I fell asleep through much of this book. Glad to have it under my belt.

[Patrick Bair · Rating 4 out of 5]

Struggled to get through it; but really an excellent read. Fascinating history of the time told through the lives of three of its most accomplished men, perhaps the three most famous men in U.S. history never to be President.

[Douglas Graney · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you're into the politics of the precivil war era, get this.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fascinating study of three great Senators at a time in history when the Senate was more influential than the presidency.

[Bryan Woerner · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good biography of 3 American statesmen, their triumphs and their failures.

[Yunis · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is three biographies in the same time. Sometimes it worked in the book, but I felt confused most of the time.

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

Foundational book about the second generation of America's leaders...

[Jeffrey Thomas]

Whew! A dense book, rather hard to take at times, for all the bluster, posturing, and vanity of all three men, and of their not hewing to the line that abolitionists and subsequent generations want them to have taken. But a very good writer, who stays true to his standards of what to cover. And, as promised by one of the puff quotes on the back, you do end up with a complete and therefore strong sense of the national dynamics of the time and its politics, a range in which the Union is central throughout and the presidency, Congress, and national institutions evolve significantly; the centrifugal and centripetal tendencies that have run throughout our history rise in high relief; and the centrality of slavery to the Civil War is clear.