Indivisible: Daniel Webster and the Birth of American Nationalism: A Review

“It is, sir, as I have said, a small college. And yet there are those who love it!” If Dartmouth undergraduates know anything about Daniel Webster, it is almost certainly that it was he who spoke these immortal words before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1818, while representing his alma mater in Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Some of our more literary-minded peers might also know Webster from Stephen Vincent Benét’s inspired take on the Faust myth, “The Devil and Daniel Webster” (1936), in which a fictionalized Webster compellingly invokes American patriotism and freedom to defend a New Hampshire farmer who has contracted with the devil. It is deeply unfortunate that, today, fewer still are likely to know of the critical role that Webster played in advancing the unionist and indeed nationalist cause in the early, and divided, years of our republic. It is for this reason that Joel Richard Paul’s Indivisible: Daniel Webster and the Birth of American Nationalism is such an important read, for both the historically inclined and Dartmouth undergraduates.

An 1801 graduate of the College, Daniel Webster was a celebrated statesman whose staunch defense of the Constitution and vivid, patriotic, and much-publicized oratory—likely the greatest in American history—wrought a profound impact on the American self-conception. In this way, Webster, who died in 1852, played an important part in holding the country together in the tumultuous antebellum years, from the War of 1812 through the run-up to the Civil War. 

In discussing Indivisible, I must note what the book is and what it is not, for it does somewhat defy simple classification. Mr. Paul is a professor of law at UC-Hastings, yet Indivisible is not a law book but a history book; it does not read as if it were penned by a legal theorist. Rather, Paul writes as would a historian—but Indivisible is not an academic work insofar as it offers little new history or analysis. The book is, quite simply and not ignobly, a well-told work of popular history. It is an accessible book that paints an absorbing picture of American politics in the antebellum period. I must add that a biography of Webster, it is not; a clearly thesis-driven argument, it has not. Rather, Indivisible is a collection of vignette-type stories, stitched together into a thematic but largely chronological history of early American nationalism, in which history Webster regularly appears.

Indivisible begins by charting Webster’s ascendancy to politics in his home state of New Hampshire, and it invokes Dartmouth, outlining Webster’s experiences at the College and excerpting an outstanding, nationalistic July Fourth oration which he delivered in Hanover in 1800. Paul firmly establishes Webster’s immediate embrace of conservatism when describing his time at Dartmouth, early association with the Federalist Party, and election to Congress. (Curiously, however, throughout the remainder of the book, Paul seems contented to substitute terms such as “patriotic,” “nationalist,” and “Constitutionalist.”)

One of the most fascinating chapters comes early in the book, when Paul discusses the intense opposition of Federalists and New Englanders (most of the latter were the former) to “Mr. Madison’s War,” the War of 1812. Despite Webster’s own fierce opposition to the war, his keen writing and speechmaking in this period marked a persuasive articulation of unionist and nationalist opposition to secession, even as the war crippled the New England economy. Parallels to the run-up to the Civil War, when Webster continued his staunch opposition to secession while the south started to embrace it, are overt and make this chapter compelling reading.

Paul goes on to highlight the nationalism—and successful advocacy of the primacy of the Constitution—which Webster advanced in his oral arguments in the landmark Supreme Court cases Dartmouth College v. Woodward, McCulloch v. Maryland, and Gibbons v. Ogden. Paul alternates discussions of these cases with depictions of writings and events in which like-minded conservatives—contemporaries of Webster beginning in the 1820s—played prominent parts. Paul portrays well a host of figures who similarly embraced and articulated a sense of American nationalism, figures largely from the realms of business and literature. Most importantly, though, he highlights the great diplomat, statesman, and president John Quincy Adams. 

Paul devotes substantial attention to Adams, often speaking of him in the traditional sense as the Executive Branch analogue of Webster and Henry Clay. More pointedly, Paul emphasizes the rivalry which existed between these three conservative Whigs. Adams’ personal correspondence serves admirably to this end. It functions as a source of fascinating history concerning James Monroe’s presidency (in which Adams was Secretary of State), Adams’ own presidency, and the presidencies of his successors. It is to Paul’s credit that he quotes Adams as often as he does, especially regarding Webster’s nationalism, oratory, and ambition. Notably, Paul recounts Webster’s nationalistic eulogy of both John Adams the Elder and Thomas Jefferson, which he delivered in Boston in 1826, and records the younger Adams’ grudging admiration for the speech. Paul also directly links Webster’s oratorical powers as displayed in this speech to his appointment by the Massachusetts Assembly as U.S. Senator just a few months later.

Paul soon turns to the most celebrated speech ever delivered in the U.S. Senate: Webster’s Second Reply to Hayne. This was the 1830 speech in which Webster, before a packed chamber, declared the Constitution “the supreme law,” offered a prescient warning against secession, and famously identified a “sentiment dear to every true American heart—Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!” Paul’s excellent explanation of the speech conveys a remarkable, almost extratemporal feeling to the reader. Indeed, Paul succeeds in contextually situating the speech’s references to, and effects on, secessionists witnessing it, such as Vice President John C. Calhoun.

Among later chapters, one of the more exciting tells of Webster’s 1839 visit to Britain, a trip during which he revealed himself to be at once an American nationalist and a passionate Anglophile. While in Britain, he traveled in aristocratic circles and became a favorite guest of Queen Victoria, whom he admired, and who reportedly admired in turn both his “striking head” and the breadth of his eloquence.

In another intriguing vignette, Paul recounts that, during Webster’s first term as Secretary of State (1841-43), under William Henry Harrison and John Tyler, the primary foreign policy questions concerned Great Britain—and in particular U.S.-Canada border disputes left unresolved since the 1783 Treaty of Paris. When Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel took office, he appointed one of the friends Webster had made during his 1839 trip, Lord Ashburton, as special emissary to settle the border question. Thus both sides knew that an agreement was within reach. However, substantial political maneuvering by all of the stakeholders—Webster, Ashburton, and delegations from Maine and other states—ensured the process was drawn out. In perhaps the most humorous moments in the book, Paul describes the various maps to which each party had access—maps which showed different borders having been decided upon in the 1783 treaty. Ultimately, one of Webster’s proposals prevailed, and the too-often-forgotten Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 was signed.

One of the final stories which Paul tells deals with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, of which Webster, upon his appointment by Millard Fillmore to a second term as Secretary of State (1850-1852), was an ardent supporter. Such support has sullied Webster’s reputation among some historians, but Paul avoids the by-now clichéd criticism directed toward Webster. Having richly contextualized Webster throughout his book as a passionate nationalist and unionist, Paul has worked to ensure that readers will evaluate Webster according to the standards of his own time. To be sure, Paul has ensured that one can more readily understand Webster’s support for the Compromise, so as to avoid splitting the Union.

Joel Richard Paul’s Indivisible: Daniel Webster and the Birth of American Nationalism is an engaging and important work of popular history. I must confess that, in first reading the book, it seemed Webster was less a main character than a supporting player who kept popping up in odd places. However, I now recognize that this is just the point: throughout his life, irrespective of his political office and no matter the circumstances at hand, Webster succeeded in exerting a deep impact on our nation’s self-conception. He inspired an American nationalism and, in so doing, helped keep the country united in the first half of the nineteenth century.