Indivisible: Daniel Webster and the Birth of American Nationalism

by Joel Richard Paul

The story of how Daniel Webster popularized the ideals of American nationalism that helped forge our nation’s identity and inspire Abraham Lincoln to preserve the Union

When the United States was founded in 1776, its citizens didn’t think of themselves as “Americans.” They were New Yorkers or Virginians or Pennsylvanians. It was decades later that the seeds of American nationalism—identifying with one’s own nation and supporting its broader interests—began to take root. But what kind of nationalism should Americans embrace? The state-focused and racist nationalism of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson? Or the belief that the U.S. Constitution made all Americans one nation, indivisible, which Daniel Webster and others espoused? 

In Indivisible , historian and law professor Joel Richard Paul tells the fascinating story of how Webster, a young New Hampshire attorney turned politician, rose to national prominence through his powerful oratory and unwavering belief in the United States and captured the national imagination. In his speeches, on the floors of the House and Senate, in court, and as Secretary of State, Webster argued that the Constitution was not a compact made by states but an expression of the will of all Americans. As the greatest orator of his age, Webster saw his speeches and writings published widely, and his stirring rhetoric convinced Americans to see themselves differently, as a nation bound together by a government of laws, not parochial interests. As these ideas took root, they influenced future leaders, among them Abraham Lincoln, who drew on them to hold the nation together during the Civil War.

As he did in Without Precedent and Unlikely Allies , Joel Richard Paul has written in Indivisible both a compelling history and a fascinating account of one of the founders of our national perspective.

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

528 pages, Hardcover

Published October 25, 2022

Reviews

[Donald Powell · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is not exclusively about Daniel Webster. He is covered in good detail but it is a history of the United States of America from about 1800 to 1850. Much of what is in this book is a recapitulation of what any history student would know; however, it covers many things in detail and from a perspective which make it unique, enlightening, interesting and fun to read. Every historian has their own take on things and this law professor/historian writes and conveys his clearly and precisely.

For the time discussed and its major players this is a very good book of history. I recommend it to any serious American history buff.

[Andrew Spurgeon · Rating 5 out of 5]

A look at one of America's greatest orators and his impact on the country. Not a traditional biography in that this is not an in depth look at Webster's upbringing but really starts as he starts his political and oratory life.

Webster's story is fascinating as he is not a black and white figure. He did some amazing things in his life, but he had his vices and selfish tendencies, and ultimately tarnished his legacy by his support for the fugitive slave act. Well worth the time to read and understand him, and his greater role in developing the national pride that was missing from early America.

[JC Pham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Known to be the greatest orator of his time, Daniel Webster's legacy demands that any author telling his story must possess their own extraordinary talent with words. Joel Richard Paul is a worthy writer, setting out the history of the “Godlike” Daniel with clear, concise writing. Weaving the history of the United States with the personal story of the most influential speaker of the mid-1800s, Paul presents how American Nationalism came to be, and what it has meant to the country’s citizens throughout the years. He analyzes the ascent of a man who spent his childhood working on his family’s farm, only to become an integral part of America’s political beginning, from his impassioned speeches to his long career in various parts of the US government. Webster truly comes alive in these pages, and Paul’s description of the racial and political divide of early America feels eerily reflective of current conflicts. This book is an eloquent statement on the power of words, and a must-read for any lover of American history.

[Bookoholiccafe · Rating 4 out of 5]

It took me a month to read this book, the story is about Daniel Webster, who is a young attorney in New Hampshire who turns into a politician.
Joel Richard Paul did an amazing job writing this book, the writing was transparent and concise. And I like how the author genuinely twisted Daniel Webster’s prominent and powerful life with the history of the United States.
The story examines the life and rise of a man who devoted his youth to working on his family’s farm and then became an important element of America’s politics.

I enjoyed the writing, the flow of the story, and the research that was put into writing this book.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Paul's discussion of Daniel Webster often veers into a recitation of common historical knowledge. While an excellent background read about Webster (and Clay and Calhoun, who together formed the Great Triumvirate), Paul's work is far from a specific, biography-like examination of such a complex American figure.

[Mathew Richards · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sheds some unique insights into early American history. Paul writes in an engaging way, and navigated the difficulty of avoiding bias fairly well.

[James Wiseman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Godlike in Length

This was a very informative book, but parts of it were very drawn out. It was not difficult at times to forget who the book was about.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good book, but it could have used stronger editing. Critique first: this was not quite a full biography of Daniel Webster, the Whig politician, orator, and American nationalist of the mid-19th century, but it was also not quite a full history of the United States between the War of 1812 and the 1850s. The sections on Webster were good and I learned a lot about him, but I think the book would have been more effective if it had focused more on him and the theme of US nationalism. Occasionally, the book tried to be too much of a general period history with material only loosely related to the main theme. Also the author threw in some shots at Trump, and while I detest Trump, this kind of thing is best avoided; the parallels between him and someone like Andrew Jackson should be obvious to anyone paying attention.

This book uses Webster and other major figures from this era to explore the development of American nationalism. JRP frames the book well: how did the US go from a very loose "nation" in which people's loyalties and identities related mostly to their states or regions to one where people would fight and die (at least in the north) for their nation? Webster was a critical figure in bringing about this change. He developed what JRP aptly calls "constitutional nationalism," or a view of the American nation as defined by the act of the people in creating the constitution, or in effect creating the nation itself. This is an early form of what we now call civic nationalism or civil religion, a form of American national identity focused on ideas as the unifying basis of the nation.

Webster developed this form of nationalism as a counter to a Calhoun-ian vision of the nation as a de facto Confederacy of states that held both the right to nullify laws that went against their interests and ultimately to secede from the Union. Webster rightly saw that this was both anti-democratic and a recipe for anarchy, presaging Lincoln and the Republican Party's later response to actual secession. JRP has a great section on Webster's reply to Hayne, which was probably his greatest moment as an orator (Webster was one of Lincoln's heroes).

And yet, Webster also embodied the contradictions and flaws of American nationalism in this period. He understood that the issue that might break the union was slavery, seeing how party politics realigned in the 1840s from Whig v Democrat to north v south, slave v free. He ultimately supported the compromise of 1850, giving a famous speech before the Senate blasting both the anti-slavery forces and Calhounian fire-eaters for putting their absolutist causes above the union. Webster gave this speech, his last major political act, knowing it would sink his chances of getting the Whig Party nomination. He was vehemently anti-slavery; he even purchased several enslaved people's freedom and employed them as domestic workers. But he embodied the fact that to be an American nationalist (like Webster or Clay) before the Civil War to some extent meant trying to find compromises on an issue that ultimately defied compromise.

JRP also looks at other economic, political, and geopolitical factors that knit the country more together, including westward expansionism, the rise of a market economy, republican ideology, the rise of a common white man form of Jacksonian democracy. He shows competing versions of American nationalism: the Whiggish preference for qualitative economic development, nativism, education, Protestantism, and reform against the Democratic vision of rapid territorial expansion, pro-white immigration, economic populism, and the subjugation of blacks and Indians. There is a particularly good chapter in here about the Young America literary movement, including the peculiar forms of nationalism embraced by figures like Hawthorne, Poe, Melville, Whitman and the American quest for its own literary tradition. Of course, the irony of this period of history was that the nation was simultaneously becoming more of a nation while also becoming more divided on the question of slavery, which politicians for decades tried but ultimately failed in keeping suppressed as an issue, knowing its explosive potential.

While I think this book could have been 20% shorter, it was a nice study of an era I'm fascinated by and a figure that I didn't know a lot about.

[David Rush · Rating 3 out of 5]

My take away is that this is more about “the times” than “the man”.

My only other exposure to Daniel Webster was form the Stephen Vincent Benet store “The Devil and Daniel Webster, which my father read to me as a child.

You get a feel for how impressive an orator he was and how his speeches became standards of great rhetoric. And at the end we find out that many of his speeches were part of the ubiquitous “McGuffey's Eclectic Primer” so generations grew up with Daniel Webster as the exemplar of how to reason and motivate. So his legend lived on well past his passing.

Other points
Pre-Civil War America was always balancing on dis-union and Webster was somebody who promoted America as a nation over a collection of states. BUT for all his work the compromise he helped forge in 1850 following the admittance of Texas and California really only delayed what in hindsight seems like an inevitable sectional war.

Like I said at the start, while we get some Webster biography it seems most of the book is about how fractured things were for the first 75 years of the country. Somebody was always pissed off and it is really kind of amazing anything got done rather than fall apart because of local loyalties and bone headed stubbornness.

Also as much as it is a bio of Webster it is a condemnation of Andrew Jackson...Jackson does not come off well in this story. And assuming the author has his facts right, it is hard to imagine mitigating context that would show him in better light. That said I hope to track down a decent Andy Jackson bio in the near future.

All in all, all the craziness of that era has an eerie resonance with the current political climate. People were idiots then and unreasonable as hell, and they are now (I suppose differing viewpoints will have differing opinions on who are the crazies, though – just know I am right).

Also, it is almost a given that digging into racial views of 19th century intellectuals is disappointing.
Walt Whitman, for example, dripping with condescension and racism, wrote,

“What has miserable, inefficient Mexico—with her superstition, her burlesque upon freedom, her actual tyranny by the few over the many—what has she to do with the great mission of peopling the new world with a noble race?” | Location: 7,382

Emerson doubted that Blacks could ever achieve equality with whites. He thought that African Americans were not capable of serious thoughts and lived “in the plane of vegetables and animal existence, whose law is to prey on one another.” | Location: 6,960

Good book, maybe not great, but glad I read it. Maybe I will dig out my copy of "The Devil and Daniel Webster"

One more quote about the original Bowery Boys from 1850.

The most notorious of its denizens were the brawling Bowery Boys, also known as “b’hoys.” One could easily spot them with their greased-down long hair, stovepipe hats, red jackets, shiny boots, and broad suspenders. They saw themselves as guardians of white Protestant laborers who felt displaced by the influx of immigrant Irish Catholics, and squeezed by the owners of capital. | Location: 6,728

[Madeleine Liu · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a tiring read. It is long, and felt longer, because of Paul's overuse of stock phrases and confusing way of telling a story that dwells excessively on the background and exposition, and then hurriedly steams toward a conclusion. Therefore, while I cannot say it an incomplete book, no-one who reads this book alone will have learnt very much about tariffs or the Missouri Compromise. And then, there is the bias. Paul has obvious biases for the Whig, the abolitionist and the intellectual, which are brazen in some of his omissions and obiter dicta. Furthermore, it is difficult to take him seriously when he foists so many connections upon the reader, such as making a jab at a president from New York getting votes from populists and Southerners, seemingly for its own sake, as though Trump and Fillmore are otherwise alike. There are also some legitimate factual errors, such as saying Taylor died from "cherries and raw vegetables", when it is now suspected poisoned drinking-water was the cause, or even that Jackson was from Virginia, not Carolina—overall, Paul takes such a viciously one-sided view of Jackson, Calhoun and other Democrats that, even though I hardly support the men, I cannot take it seriously. That this book was readable at all goes to Paul's assiduity in at least taking a broad view of American history, though even this praise must be tempered by the fact that, in consequence, this is less of a biography and more of a history of the era with a peculiar predilection for Daniel Webster. Where they exist, Paul took good quotes, and his narrative carried along through them—additionally, some paragraphs, such as that assessing secession in 1850 against 1860, were genuinely insightful. However, it is a laborious read because Paul is not a gifted writer and was writing apparently to support his thesis howsoever he could. Better historians would not be so obtrusive about it, or at least make the experience more enjoyable, instead of making each paragraph read the same.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

Daniel Webster, Henry Clay and John Calhoun may be the best-known politicians of the 19th century who never reached the presidency. It wasn't for lack of effort. All repeatedly vied for the White House during their lengthy Senate tenures, but lost out to often lesser men. Joel Richard Paul tells a great story of these leading lights of the times (plus J.Q. Adams, Jackson, a young Lincoln) and their history-making sagas.

This was a time when speechmaking made you very famous. When these men talked, people listened. Thousands would gather to hear Webster 's stirring spins, often for hours on end, about the desperate need to keep the United States, well, united. Calhoun was the nation's leading advocate of states' rights. Clay sought comprise that was both welcomed and scorned. All three faced issues that brought the country together (check the title) at the same time these controversies, especially slavery, were tearing the country apart.

Paul is a opionated historian. He is highly complementary to Webster. He's not too crazy about Calhoun and Clay, And he excoriates many of the era's chief executives (especially Jackson amd Polk) often using humor to humanize these leaders who sometimes didn't lead terribly wisely. It's a rare history book that makes one laught out loud while reading an often sobering story, but Paul doesn't hesitate to call out the foibles of those aboard the ship of state.

The book drags just a little at times. Paul quotes from many speeches at length and he assumes a certain amount of knowledge of the ways and means of 19th century politics. That said, history fans will love tbis stuff. Paul spins fascinating tales (states' rights, race, centralized power) that still resonate today.

[Casey · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good book, providing a focused biography of Daniel Webster alongside a political history of the United States in the first half of the 19th century. The author, legal academic Joel Richard Paul, argues that Daniel Webster was a leading figure in the slow process of transforming American political thought from a concentration on state level issues to a national level focus. Paul explains that Webster’s political life began in the very sectionalized era of the Jefferson/Madison presidencies, with serious discussions for the breaking of relations between New England and the rest of the nation. Paul argues that Webster came, over a 40+ year career, to see union as the foundation for American political considerations. This put him at odds with the Jackson populists and made him a strong supporter of compromise in the various slavery expansion debates. Paul shows that Webster’s view on the illegality of disunion was a major factor in the North’s reaction to Southern secession. The book does skew away from Webster’s story quite often. This brings a sometimes confusing focus, though it does provide plenty of political history for all the major characters of the pre-Civil War era. A great book for understanding the political background to the Civil War as understood by those who fought it.

[Kadin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book does a good job of painting the different types of nationalism that arose in America, in different parts of the country and in different parties, throughout the 19th century. Paul guides us through how the different nationalistic movements evolved and how sectarian interests and political leaders influenced them. It was also a book chock full of interesting historical tidbits that I like to collect.

I have only two real critiques. First, the title is a little misleading: While Daniel Webster is a major character in the book and it follows his political career throughout, it was nearly as much of a political biography of him as it was a number of other politicians including John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun. Second, Paul seemed to insert a little more than the typical amount of biases into his writing. It's not damning but it's noticeable in the writing at times.

Overall, I think it's a pretty good history of the rise of nationalism (not necessarily in the way we think of it today) and the figures that influenced it in the 19th century.

[Anthony Watson · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very well-written and well-researched book on a period of American history that I was woefully ignorant of. Paul does a good job presenting the story and development of Daniel Webster and other important American political figures such as John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay. John C. Calhoun, and many more important statesmen in our history. And while its obviously clear Paul has a bias towards presenting Webster in the best light possible, he does not shy away from ridiculing him and consistently bringing up Webster's private life, which was filled with shameful and otherwise degrading acts for a man with his level of public honor and stature. Overall a fantastic and surprisingly relevant book, especially when certain prominent political figures in our current Congress openly talk about a "national divorce" and use such diabolical language to divide us. When we hear such language we must heed Webster's infamous line of Liberty and Union, Now and Forever, One and Inseparable" no matter our disagreements.

[Cynthia Marcus · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not a biography of Webster. Only about 10 % of the book is specifically about Webster. This is really a history of the period 1801 to 1850. It contains alot of interesting information like how the state flag of California came into being. However, it is primarily a history of the formation of our political parties and how thirteen Atlantic Coast states became a country that encompassed a continent.

I previously read the author's book, Without Precedent, about John Marshall. This book lacks the wit of his previous book and while Indivisible is well researched and discusses many significant issues, it can be dry and boring. The venom that was directed towards Jefferson in Without Precedent is now spued on Jackson. As is the current fad, the view that America is a stolen country created by enslaved persons is the prevelant theme of this book.

It is worth the time of Amercian history buffs.

[Brian E. · Rating 2 out of 5]

When I bought this book, I was really excited about a new book about Daniel Webster. I had read Irving H. Bartlett’s book on Webster. I also read Robert Remini’s book on Daniel Webster. I even read The Great Triumvirate by Merrill D. Peterson. I can honestly say I learned more about Daniel Webster by reading 3 pages of any of the books listed than reading the entire book, Indivisible. This book was more of subjective history and personal feelings than a true historic book. There were some significant errors in this book. For instance, In chapter 12, The Corrupt Bargain, Mr. Paul states on page 128 that President Andrew Jackson was a slaveholding planter born in Virginia. Slaveholding yes, Virginia, no. Maybe Mr. Paul should read more about the characters of history. President Jackson was born on the border of North and South Carolina. After I read this gross error I was turned off. Very little about Daniel Webster and a lot of subjective history. I do not recommend.

[Lou Chodosh]

Was looking forward to this book; always willing to learn as there are many perspectives to any historical period. However, the obvious prejudices of the author taint this book. Sure, it’s his book, and he can have whatever opinions he wants, but state them plainly; don’t pretend this is objectively presented history . There are many statements with no back up citations . There are inconsistencies in who held what beliefs on an issue. President Jackson certainly had faults, but using language that is used today to criticize trump is cheap and taudry. ( I have no use whatever for trump, just making the point that the material is presented in a prejudicial way.). Also, at least for the first 1/2, Webster is a side show; it’s all about Clay and Adams . So even the title is misleading. All in all, skip this book.

[Gregory · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a useful survey of the period between the War of 1812 and the Civil War. I think that if I was still teaching the general US history course that I would find this a very useful book indeed. The title is a little misleading, I think. While nationalism is front and center in this book, Daniel Webster is not. He plays an important role, for sure, but so do John Quincy Adams, John Calhoun, Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson, and a variety of other political, social, religious, and cultural leaders. Having such a large cast of characters, I think, makes a better case for the development of nationalism. It also allows Paul to avoid getting bogged down in the triumvirate approach with Webster representing New England, Clay, the West, and Calhoun the south.

[Don Bryant · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a good overview of the times of Andrew Jackson. Actually Daniel Webster gets very much a secondary role. I wanted more about him. It is very clear from the beginning that the author is no fan of Jackson. Virtually nothing good to say about him. This makes it a one-sided and irritating narrative. I did find the description of the use of tariffs helpful. In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s Jackson was regularly regarded as in the top five of American Presidents. His star has fallen since the intrusion of postmodernism into our liberal arts departments, much less the domination of DEI over the last decade that has made a demon out of Thomas Jefferson in particular but also including George Washington. Jackson has now risen up the charts recently with the growth of populism.

[Dennis · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book covers the period between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. The book uses the arc of Daniel Webster's life as the pattern of the history told in Invisible. I will finish the book today. For me this was a very worthwhile read. The important story for me is the depiction of regionalism in the various colonies and newer states, the political parties and subsets of parties and the struggle to prevent the Civil War.

[James Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book presents an excellent history of the U.S. from the presidency of James Madison through that of Millard Fillmore. It is very well written. The title is a bit of a misnomer. I had expected a biography of Daniel Webster but although he is a major player during this period, the book is only incidentally about him. I found the book to be very well written and will look for other books by Joel Paul.

[Jerome · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting narrative with lots of facts but seemed to lack a central thesis or theme. Also, it seemed that the author a specific lens that he used to interpret the historical facts to that he laid out and left little room for alternative interpretation.

[Ginny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow! What a great book. Very well written and enjoyable to read. I love books that educate and inform me - and adore those that do so in an engaging and easy manner. This is just such a book. Outstanding!

[Joseph Hearington]

I'm going to come back to this book in audio form!

[Joe Galietta · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some glaring factual errors distracted from an otherwise good history.

[Miles Boudinot · Rating 5 out of 5]

Daniel Webster's story is quite tragic.

[Christine · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read a great review of this book, the only thing I know about Daniel Webster is the story "The Devil and Daniel Webster" and that he was a great speaker. The Compromise of 1850 is a footnote to the Civil War, I had no knowledge of Webster's role. And still don't. The book, well researched is filled with detail that informs in a way Webster's time and the formation/evolution of what is still becoming the United States but the essence is lost in the minutia. I don't know if the book needed a better defined thesis or a better editor. But as much as I enjoy history this wasn't a book for me, sadly I didn't finish.