Editing Daniel Webster (section)

===Historical evaluations===
{{quote box|align=left|style=background:#d7edf4; width:35em; max-width: 40%
|quote =
Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion!&nbsp;.... There can be no such thing as a peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility&nbsp;.... We could not separate the states by any such line if we were to draw it&nbsp;....
|source= '''Daniel Webster''' (''March 7, 1850 A Plea for Harmony and Peace'')
}}

Remini writes that "whether men hated or admired [Webster], all agreed ... on the majesty of his oratory, the immensity of his intellectual powers, and the primacy of his constitutional knowledge."{{sfn|Remini|1997|p=9}} [[Ralph Waldo Emerson]], who had criticized Webster following the Seventh of March address, remarked in the immediate aftermath of his death that Webster was "the completest man", and that "nature had not in our days, or not since [[Napoleon I of France|Napoleon]], cut out such a masterpiece."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=d9lJ723GMNMC&dq=%22nature+had+not+in+our+days+or+not+since+Napoleon,+cut+out+such+a+masterpiece.%22&pg=PA60 Mott, Wesley T., and Burkholder, Robert E., eds., ''Emersonian Circles: Essays in Honor of Joel Myerson'', University of Rochester Press (1997), p. 60.]</ref> In ''[[Profiles in Courage]]'', [[John F. Kennedy]] called Webster's defense of the Compromise of 1850, despite the risk to his presidential ambitions and the denunciations he faced from the North, one of the "greatest acts of courageous principle" in the history of the Senate.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Andrew Glass |title=This Day on Capitol Hill: March 7 |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2007/03/this-day-on-capitol-hill-march-7-003015 |access-date=2023-04-06 |website=POLITICO |date=March 6, 2007 |language=en}}</ref> Conversely, ''Seventh of March'' has been criticized by [[Henry Cabot Lodge]] who contrasted the speech's support of the 1850 compromise with his 1833 rejection of similar measures. "While he was brave and true and wise in 1833," said Lodge, "in 1850 he was not only inconsistent, but that he erred deeply in policy and statesmanship" in his advocacy of a policy that "made war inevitable by encouraging slave-holders to believe that they could always obtain anything they wanted by a sufficient show of violence."{{sfn|Lodge|1883|pp=103, 105}}

Several historians suggest Webster failed to exercise leadership for any political issue or vision. Lodge describes Webster's "susceptibility to outside influences that formed such an odd trait in the character of a man so imperious by nature. When acting alone, he spoke his own opinions. When in a situation where public opinion was concentrated against him, he submitted to modifications of his views with a curious and indolent indifference."{{sfn|Lodge|1883|p=18}} Similarly, [[Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.|Arthur Schlesinger]] cites Webster's letter requesting retainers for fighting for the national bank, one of his most inveterate causes; he then asks how Webster could "expect the American people to follow him through hell or high water when he would not lead unless someone made up a purse for him?"{{sfn|Schlesinger|1945|p=84}} Remini writes that "Webster was a thoroughgoing elitist—and he reveled in it."{{sfn|Remini|1997|pp=352–353}}

Webster retains his high prestige in some recent historiography. Baxter argues that his nationalistic view of the union as one and inseparable from liberty helped the union to triumph over the states-rights Confederacy, making it his greatest contribution.<ref>Maurice G. Baxter, ''One and Inseparable: Daniel Webster and the Union'' (1984)</ref> Bartlett, however, emphasizing Webster's private life, says his great oratorical achievements were in part undercut by his improvidence with money, his excessively opulent lifestyle, and his numerous conflict-of-interest situations.<ref>Irving H. Bartlett, ''Daniel Webster'' (1978)</ref> Remini points out that Webster's historical orations taught Americans their history before textbooks were widely available.{{sfn|Remini|1997|p=187}} In 1957, a Senate Committee headed by then Senator John F. Kennedy named Webster, Clay, Calhoun, [[Robert M. La Follette]], and [[Robert A. Taft]] as the five greatest senators in history—portraits of the "famous five" were added to the [[United States Senate Reception Room|Senate Reception Room]].<ref>{{cite web |title=The "Famous Five" |url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Famous_Five_Seven.htm |publisher=United States Senate |access-date=December 19, 2018}}</ref>

While evaluations on his political career vary, Webster is widely praised for his talent as an orator and attorney. Former [[Solicitor General of the United States|Solicitor General]] [[Seth P. Waxman]] writes that "in the realm of advocacy, Webster doesn't merely sit in the Pantheon: He is Zeus himself."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Waxman |first1=Seth P. |title=In the Shadow of Daniel Webster: Arguing Appeals in the Twenty-First Century |journal=J. App. Prac. & Process |date=2001 |volume=3 |page=523 |url=https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1278&context=facpub}}</ref> Kennedy praised Webster's "ability to make alive and supreme the latent sense of oneness, of union, that all Americans felt but few could express."<ref name="orator">{{cite book|last=Kennedy|title=Profiles in Courage| year=2004| page=58}}</ref>{{sfn|Lodge|1883|p=66}} Webster's "Reply to Hayne" in 1830 was generally regarded as "the most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress," and was a stock exercise for oratory students for 75 years.<ref name="Allan Nevins 1947">Allan Nevins, ''Ordeal of the Union'' (1947) 1:288.</ref> Schlesinger, however, notes that he is also an example of the limitations of formal oratory: Congress heard Webster or Clay with admiration, but they rarely prevailed at the vote. Plainer speech and party solidarity were more effective, and Webster never approached Jackson's popular appeal.{{sfn|Schlesinger|1945|pp=50–52}}