The Seventh Of March Speech.

March 7th, 1850

Source: Shoemaker.121-130

“I hear with distress and anguish the word “secession,” especially when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic,and known to the country, and known all over the world, for their political services. Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see the miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffing the surface!”

 Secession is defined as the process of withdrawing or separating from a nation or state and becoming independent. In the article “ The Seventh of March Speech,” Daniel Webster expressed his disappointment with members of the Senate of the United States concerning his support to the compromise with the  Fugitive Slaves Act of 1850. An act which required federal officials to recapture and return runaway slaves to their owners.

  Webster was a member in the senate and a main supporter of the Fugative Slave Act and he strongly believed that slavery couldn’t be “abolished” but that it was a matter of historical reality rather than moral principals. Webster firmly believed that captured slaves should be returned to their rightful owners as they were considered to be the owners’ property. Webster was also against the Abolition societies as he thought they were useless and that they caused tensions between the blacks and whites over the last twenty years and that nothing good or valuable came out of it. Webster argued that laws should be abided and that no one should get around the Constitution, or embarrass the free exercise of the rights secured by the Constitution as stated in the article.

    Webster speech is an outreach to the other members of senate insisting that a secession is unpatriotic and could never be peaceful when there are different views towards the Fugitive Slave Law. It would be the fall of the government and an embarrassment  to the United States of America. It would be considered a disruption of the normals aspects of life and that things wouldn't be the same.

    In my opinion Webster was mainly looking out for his interest. The livelihood of the slaves was not of importance to him because he didn't see beyond that fact that they were running away to get away from the unjust and inhuman treatment that they were receiving. Probably he himself was a slave master and was protecting his interest and seeking profits. It isn’t uncommon for individuals in certain areas of the government to work together and manipulate their power to get a desired and profitable outcome. What is also ironic to me is that the law seems to be considered for these individuals when it seems to be in their benefit. For instance, his claim sought to mobilize the nation to follow the law. He stated that there would be penalties and punishment for such actions for citizens who do not abide by the law. However, there seemed to be no equal consideration for the freedom, justice and liberty for all…that everyone should be equal.