Webster's Seventh of March Speech and the Secession Movement, 1850 — Story, Setting & Ideas

The Foreword as a Roadmap

The foreword does more than summarize; it poses two explicit questions that structure the entire investigation: was there a real danger of secession in 1850, and was Webster sincere in deriving his policy from national peril rather than self-interest? These questions are not answered immediately. Instead, the foreword promises that Foster 'makes an adequate case for Webster' on the latter point and 'establishes two things' about Southern readiness to secede. A first-time reader should note that this framing turns the study into a defense of Webster's motives and a demonstration of the secession threat—not a neutral chronicle.

The foreword also introduces a key tension: Webster was 'harshly criticized' and called 'Traitor' by Abolitionists, a view that 'has not lost them all, even now.' By foregrounding this controversy, the text invites the reader to evaluate evidence for themselves as Foster presents it.

Evidence of Crisis: Bonds, Letters, and a Plain Citizen

In the middle excerpts, Foster builds his case for secession danger through concrete evidence. He cites daily sales of United States bonds in New York from 1849–1850, noting that the change was 'four or five dollars' and that prices moved downward before Webster's speech and upward afterward. This financial data is used to counter a claim by Parker that the change was 'not one mill.' Foster also quotes Thurlow Weed's judgment that 'the country had every appearance of being on the eve of a Revolution' and Everett's recognition that 'the radicals at the South have made up their minds to separate.'

Perhaps most striking is the inclusion of a letter from Barker of Beaver, Pennsylvania, who implores Webster: 'do it, Mr. Webster, as you can, do it as a bold and gifted statesman and patriot; reconcile the North and South and PRESERVE the UNION.' This plain citizen's voice, dated March 4, 1850, personalizes the pressure on Webster and illustrates the public expectation of compromise. The excerpts also record Webster's own determination, on March 1, to make 'an honest, truth-telling speech, and a Union speech.'

Refuting the 'Bid for the Presidency' Charge

Foster directly addresses the accusation that Webster's speech was 'a bid for the presidency,' calling it a 'malignant charge' that 'was long ago discarded, even by Lodge.' He asserts that 'the modern investigator finds no evidence for it and every evidence against it.' The basis for this claim is a survey of Webster's correspondence: 'The printed or manuscript letters to or from Webster in 1850 and 1851 show him and his friends deeply concerned over the danger to the Union, but not about the presidency.' Foster notes that there is 'rarest mention of the matter in letters by personal or political friends; none by Webster, so far as the writer has observed.'

This argument is central to the study's purpose. A first-time reader should note that Foster relies on negative evidence—the absence of presidential ambition in the letters—to support his case. He also appeals to consistency, claiming that Webster's position on March 7 was 'in harmony with his attitude toward Union and slavery, and with the law and the facts.' The excerpts do not include the full text of the speech, so the reader must take Foster's characterization on trust, but the study's method is to use external evidence (letters, bond prices, contemporary reports) rather than close reading of the oration itself.

Structure and Rhetoric: How the Study Guides Interpretation

The study is divided into numbered sections (I–IV), with the foreword standing apart. The excerpts show that Section III begins by restating the 'cumulative stress' of evidence that led Webster to make his Union speech. Foster then describes the speech's purpose and character, noting its title 'The Constitution and the Union' and its dedication to the people of Massachusetts: 'Necessity compels me to speak true rather than pleasing things.' This quotation is one of the few direct words from Webster in the excerpts, and it reinforces the image of a reluctant truth-teller.

Foster's own voice is measured but not neutral. He uses phrases like 'malignant charge' and 'monstrous mistake' to characterize opposing views. The footnotes (67–71) anchor claims in specific sources, including the Advertiser and Everett's letters. A first-time reader should pay attention to these footnotes as markers of evidence. The study's structure—moving from context to evidence to refutation—creates a cumulative argument that the reader is meant to follow sequentially.

Foster's study is best read as a historical argument rather than a neutral account. The excerpts reveal a tight focus on two questions: the reality of secession danger and Webster's sincerity. Readers who want to evaluate Foster's case should attend to the footnotes and the specific evidence he marshals—bond prices, letters, contemporary reports—rather than expecting a full transcript of the speech. The study's value lies in its attempt to recover a moment of crisis and to rehabilitate Webster's motives, but the excerpts are incomplete, and the speech itself remains largely offstage.

That rainy afternoon, I kept returning to Webster’s speech, tracing how Foster dismantled the presidency charge with quiet precision. The weight of lost arguments felt almost physical, like weather pressing against my window. Later, with the same unhurried curiosity, I found myself lingering over Christopher Columbus and the New World of His Discovery — Complete — Story, Setting & Ideas, sensing the same shadow—how one man’s ambition reshapes a world he barely understands.