What do you think?
Rate this book
Library of American Biography
Daniel Webster and the Rise of National Conservatism
Does not have an ISBN number.
215 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1955
37 people want to read
About the author
Richard Nelson Current
74 books9 followersCalled "the dean of Lincoln scholars", Richard Nelson Current earned a B.A. in 1934 from Oberlin College, and M.A. from The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in 1935, a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1940. Among the institutions at which Current taught over the course of his career was Rutgers University, Hamilton College, Northern Michigan University, Lawrence University, Mills College, Salisbury State University, the University of Illinois, the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
March 23, 2023
What is conservatism? This unanswered question looms over Richard Current’s short book, in which he presents Daniel Webster, the great American orator and statesman, as the preeminent representative of conservatism in his era. As Current details, Webster often declared himself a conservative in his speeches, and used it rhetorically to defend and advance the issues he advocated. But to what degree did it hold true?
Distilled to its essential premise, conservatism is about preserving the established system and its values. Yet one of the points that stands out from Current’s book is Webster’s willingness to adjust his views and his goals to fit with evolving circumstances. This is evident early in his political career, when Webster first came to prominence as an opponent of President James Madison’s foreign policy. As an advocate in Congress for the mercantile interests in his native New Hampshire, Webster strongly opposed the imposition of tariffs as detrimental to trade. With the growth of the manufacturing sector in the region after the War of 1812, however, Webster reversed himself and by the late 1820s was one of the staunchest supporters of levying high import duties that protected New England’s emerging industries. For the rest of his career, free trade advocates delighted in quoting Webster’s earlier arguments for their cause back to him in response to his speeches supporting protectionist policies.
To Webster, this shift did not represent a contradiction of his values but a maintenance of them. This was because of his core belief in the close ties between property and power, which is the most consistent theme that Current divines from Webster’s career. In particular, he highlights Webster’s speeches at the 1820-1 Massachusetts constitutional convention and afterward, in which he articulated his opposition to majority rule. For Webster, there was no contradiction between property rule and popular government, provided that the economic system and the laws that governed it ensured that provided for its distribution as widely as possible. Current notes that while this formulation anticipated Karl Marx, Webster was convinced that this was best achieved by a federal government that stimulated and regulated economic activity though protective tariffs, a national banking system, and the development of a national infrastructure.
Such policies, Webster believed, would not just benefit New England, but the nation as a whole. And it is here that Current delineates the boundary between Webster and the other great conservative icon from the era, John C. Calhoun, arguing that the South Carolinian was not a conservative but a reactionary who envisaged an alliance between the Southern planters and Northern capitalists that would preserve the slave economy he defined his career defending. In this respect, Current argues that Webster occupied a middle-ground between Calhoun and the liberal populism of Northerners such as Martin Van Buren, with much of his career dedicated to preserving a national system against those who sought to undermine it for sectionalist reasons. Seen from this perspective, Webster’s classification as a conservative is not just understandable, but entirely appropriate.
Left unexplored, though, is whether Webster’s self-identification is one with which his contemporaries would have agreed. As a staunch Jeffersonian who opposed the development of a strong federal government, for example, Van Buren probably saw himself as truer to the essence of conservatism in antebellum America than Webster’s big-government vision. And no doubt many Americans today who regard themselves as conservatives would reject classifying Webster as one for a similar reason. In many ways, though, Webster modeled the pro-business attitude that defined so much of political conservatism in the century after his death. That he shifted his views in conjunction with changes in the makeup of that community does not detract from this, especially if one believes a good politician should represent their constituents by arguing for their interests. Whether it is compatible with a depiction of Webster as a man of fixed conservative principles, though, as opposed to someone who had a gift for presenting often contradictory positions as the product of the same core beliefs, is a more debatable prospect.
These issues define the limits of Current’s achievement with this book. While it still offers a succinct and even stimulating survey of Webster’s public career, it falls short in its efforts to demonstrate that his views reflected the conservatism of his time. Where the author is far more successful is in showing how Webster’s positions foreshadowed those of the conservative orthodoxy of Current’s own time, even though it may be far less representative of what it is regarded as in the country today. But then, as Current demonstrates unintentionally, perhaps the least conservative thing about conservatism is the consistency of the word’s meaning in American politics.
Distilled to its essential premise, conservatism is about preserving the established system and its values. Yet one of the points that stands out from Current’s book is Webster’s willingness to adjust his views and his goals to fit with evolving circumstances. This is evident early in his political career, when Webster first came to prominence as an opponent of President James Madison’s foreign policy. As an advocate in Congress for the mercantile interests in his native New Hampshire, Webster strongly opposed the imposition of tariffs as detrimental to trade. With the growth of the manufacturing sector in the region after the War of 1812, however, Webster reversed himself and by the late 1820s was one of the staunchest supporters of levying high import duties that protected New England’s emerging industries. For the rest of his career, free trade advocates delighted in quoting Webster’s earlier arguments for their cause back to him in response to his speeches supporting protectionist policies.
To Webster, this shift did not represent a contradiction of his values but a maintenance of them. This was because of his core belief in the close ties between property and power, which is the most consistent theme that Current divines from Webster’s career. In particular, he highlights Webster’s speeches at the 1820-1 Massachusetts constitutional convention and afterward, in which he articulated his opposition to majority rule. For Webster, there was no contradiction between property rule and popular government, provided that the economic system and the laws that governed it ensured that provided for its distribution as widely as possible. Current notes that while this formulation anticipated Karl Marx, Webster was convinced that this was best achieved by a federal government that stimulated and regulated economic activity though protective tariffs, a national banking system, and the development of a national infrastructure.
Such policies, Webster believed, would not just benefit New England, but the nation as a whole. And it is here that Current delineates the boundary between Webster and the other great conservative icon from the era, John C. Calhoun, arguing that the South Carolinian was not a conservative but a reactionary who envisaged an alliance between the Southern planters and Northern capitalists that would preserve the slave economy he defined his career defending. In this respect, Current argues that Webster occupied a middle-ground between Calhoun and the liberal populism of Northerners such as Martin Van Buren, with much of his career dedicated to preserving a national system against those who sought to undermine it for sectionalist reasons. Seen from this perspective, Webster’s classification as a conservative is not just understandable, but entirely appropriate.
Left unexplored, though, is whether Webster’s self-identification is one with which his contemporaries would have agreed. As a staunch Jeffersonian who opposed the development of a strong federal government, for example, Van Buren probably saw himself as truer to the essence of conservatism in antebellum America than Webster’s big-government vision. And no doubt many Americans today who regard themselves as conservatives would reject classifying Webster as one for a similar reason. In many ways, though, Webster modeled the pro-business attitude that defined so much of political conservatism in the century after his death. That he shifted his views in conjunction with changes in the makeup of that community does not detract from this, especially if one believes a good politician should represent their constituents by arguing for their interests. Whether it is compatible with a depiction of Webster as a man of fixed conservative principles, though, as opposed to someone who had a gift for presenting often contradictory positions as the product of the same core beliefs, is a more debatable prospect.
These issues define the limits of Current’s achievement with this book. While it still offers a succinct and even stimulating survey of Webster’s public career, it falls short in its efforts to demonstrate that his views reflected the conservatism of his time. Where the author is far more successful is in showing how Webster’s positions foreshadowed those of the conservative orthodoxy of Current’s own time, even though it may be far less representative of what it is regarded as in the country today. But then, as Current demonstrates unintentionally, perhaps the least conservative thing about conservatism is the consistency of the word’s meaning in American politics.
December 5, 2021
Ultimately a weak apologia for Webster as the progenitor of American national conservatism. The evidence is given but the conclusion is never drawn that Webster was a bourgeois opportunist, readily sacrificing principles and progressivism for the sanctity of the Amerikan "nation," ultimately ending in downright apologia and defense of the institution of slavery.
February 28, 2023
Reading this book is a great way to understand or get reacquainted with the historical giant Daniel Webster and his evolution as a national conservative. The author explains succinctly his changing views on tariffs, his defense of a national bank, his unsuccessful attempts to become president, his skepticism of the country’s expansion (largely because of the implications for slavery), and his expert use of spirited rhetoric. The author also deftly weaves in Webster’s complex interactions with Jackson, Biddle, Calhoun and many other political figures from that era. This is a worthy read for history and political buffs alike.
December 23, 2023
1955 by Richard N. Current. History, Biography, Politics. (My Amazon book review.) A swirling of the wind ...
Although admirable and written according to series requirements for The Library of American Biography, the work's adherence to formula leaves the reader gasping and grasping.
Almost an unedited massing of quotations, the problem with which is that they are given in a highly charged political atmosphere. One cannot ever tell how much Webster speaks eternal truths, constitutional principles, national axioms, colloquialisms, common sense, joke, jest, logical arguments, practical arguments, political or partisan arguments, debating points, cool logic, emotional surges, historical fact or fiction, things he earnestly believes or things he can barely stomach to say. Everything is thrown together without enough context.
I am really struggling, trying to link together a thousand quotations into a coherent biography, a history in perspective, a politics of principles or one of pragmatism, the interaction of a parochialism versus a nationalism, local and national constituencies, a personal ambition and gain versus a consistency of integrity and character, a representation of constituents’ interests versus a leadership, a moral pragmatism versus an idealism, and specifically how conservatism was defined and viewed by various individuals and factions.
Amidst the swirl of quotations of Webster’s rhetoric, there is little of telling a story. The reader wants to know the why behind things. Why did someone do this or that? Without knowing the why, but just the what, the what comes across as dry and lifeless, unrelatable data.
If the story is Daniel Webster, almost nothing is said about him personally, except toward the end of his life. The reader is not afforded an opportunity to get a feel for him as a person, in order to better grasp the flow of his speaking and politics. In Webster’s time, roughly 1815 – 1850, various themes of “conservatism” were being developed. It emerged slowly and painfully during the period, as it was very seldom the predominant issue at hand. It usually served as a backdrop, corollary, or proposed development from the main theme.
To confuse matters further, the main political parties were not organized along any consistent lines regarding the issue. In fact, the issue of conservatism was defined and redefined so many times in service to the larger issues at hand, that it loses and coherence, as it was always playing second fiddle to the larger issues, and would be turned this way and that, in their service. A commitment to conservative principles seldom drove the politics of the time, and it is hard to cull out the relevant themes.
Was Daniel Webster a conservative then? Only in the final chapter, after Webster’s decease, does the author start to develop any answers, admitting that it depends on how one defines conservatism, the individual bias shaping thought and writing on the subject, the passage of time lending perspective, and continued debate running even up to the author’s time of writing.
I would have preferred a more traditional biography of the man. I found the aggregation of his quotable words dealing with the subject, with only the barest context provided, difficult to follow, integrate mentally or remember. Some things stand out in the writing, like Webster’s attempt to represent his constituents’ interests while seeking and maneuvering towards a larger constituency and eventually a national one and the presidency.
Neither Webster nor conservatism are portrayed with a ringing and resonating clarity. What can the reader take away from this? A swirling of the wind, in this case, a great rhetorical wind.
Mini Biography: Daniel Webster was elected to Congress as a Federalist and served in the House of Representatives from 1813 to 1817. He was a prominent opponent of the Republican embargo and the War of 1812 and was elected to the House of Representatives from Boston, serving from 1823 to 1827, and then to the Senate in 1827. He opposed the protective tariff from 1816 to 1824 but voted for the tariff act of 1828. Webster supported Andrew Jackson in the nullification crisis, and opposed him on policy toward the Bank of the United States. As a critic of Jackson’s exercise of the executive power, he became a leading Whig politician when that party came into existence in 1834. He was reelected to the Senate in 1833 and 1839, resigning in 1841 to become Secretary of State under William Henry Harrison and John Tyler. Elected to the Senate in 1844, Webster supported the Compromise of 1850. He served in the administration of Millard Fillmore as Secretary of State from 1850 until his death in 1852.
Although admirable and written according to series requirements for The Library of American Biography, the work's adherence to formula leaves the reader gasping and grasping.
Almost an unedited massing of quotations, the problem with which is that they are given in a highly charged political atmosphere. One cannot ever tell how much Webster speaks eternal truths, constitutional principles, national axioms, colloquialisms, common sense, joke, jest, logical arguments, practical arguments, political or partisan arguments, debating points, cool logic, emotional surges, historical fact or fiction, things he earnestly believes or things he can barely stomach to say. Everything is thrown together without enough context.
I am really struggling, trying to link together a thousand quotations into a coherent biography, a history in perspective, a politics of principles or one of pragmatism, the interaction of a parochialism versus a nationalism, local and national constituencies, a personal ambition and gain versus a consistency of integrity and character, a representation of constituents’ interests versus a leadership, a moral pragmatism versus an idealism, and specifically how conservatism was defined and viewed by various individuals and factions.
Amidst the swirl of quotations of Webster’s rhetoric, there is little of telling a story. The reader wants to know the why behind things. Why did someone do this or that? Without knowing the why, but just the what, the what comes across as dry and lifeless, unrelatable data.
If the story is Daniel Webster, almost nothing is said about him personally, except toward the end of his life. The reader is not afforded an opportunity to get a feel for him as a person, in order to better grasp the flow of his speaking and politics. In Webster’s time, roughly 1815 – 1850, various themes of “conservatism” were being developed. It emerged slowly and painfully during the period, as it was very seldom the predominant issue at hand. It usually served as a backdrop, corollary, or proposed development from the main theme.
To confuse matters further, the main political parties were not organized along any consistent lines regarding the issue. In fact, the issue of conservatism was defined and redefined so many times in service to the larger issues at hand, that it loses and coherence, as it was always playing second fiddle to the larger issues, and would be turned this way and that, in their service. A commitment to conservative principles seldom drove the politics of the time, and it is hard to cull out the relevant themes.
Was Daniel Webster a conservative then? Only in the final chapter, after Webster’s decease, does the author start to develop any answers, admitting that it depends on how one defines conservatism, the individual bias shaping thought and writing on the subject, the passage of time lending perspective, and continued debate running even up to the author’s time of writing.
I would have preferred a more traditional biography of the man. I found the aggregation of his quotable words dealing with the subject, with only the barest context provided, difficult to follow, integrate mentally or remember. Some things stand out in the writing, like Webster’s attempt to represent his constituents’ interests while seeking and maneuvering towards a larger constituency and eventually a national one and the presidency.
Neither Webster nor conservatism are portrayed with a ringing and resonating clarity. What can the reader take away from this? A swirling of the wind, in this case, a great rhetorical wind.
Mini Biography: Daniel Webster was elected to Congress as a Federalist and served in the House of Representatives from 1813 to 1817. He was a prominent opponent of the Republican embargo and the War of 1812 and was elected to the House of Representatives from Boston, serving from 1823 to 1827, and then to the Senate in 1827. He opposed the protective tariff from 1816 to 1824 but voted for the tariff act of 1828. Webster supported Andrew Jackson in the nullification crisis, and opposed him on policy toward the Bank of the United States. As a critic of Jackson’s exercise of the executive power, he became a leading Whig politician when that party came into existence in 1834. He was reelected to the Senate in 1833 and 1839, resigning in 1841 to become Secretary of State under William Henry Harrison and John Tyler. Elected to the Senate in 1844, Webster supported the Compromise of 1850. He served in the administration of Millard Fillmore as Secretary of State from 1850 until his death in 1852.
September 24, 2013
While this series of studies of famous Americans are somewhat superficial since they are each only some 200 pages long, this one was one of the least of the bunch. It does provide an overview of the life and thoughts of Webster (even if the thoughts tended to change as his financial supporters changed).
August 6, 2015
A solid biography of Webster. However my interest was low, in that this is not my primary area of research. It did give me a greater understanding of the political differences between Lincoln and Webster, as well as others.
Currant does a good job of making Webster and his peers seem like real human beings trying to shape a new nation.
Currant does a good job of making Webster and his peers seem like real human beings trying to shape a new nation.
January 23, 2010
Read this book in high school (senior year AP US history). It really opened my eyes to one of the great American statesmen ever. America wouldn't be the place it is, and may not be a country at all in the sense that it is a country of 50 states, without Webster.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews