Two hundred years ago this summer, in the midst of midterm election campaigns, the Democratic NH Patriot printed in Concord raged against their arch-nemesis Daniel Webster and the Federalist peaceniks who opposed their war against Britain:
The federalist tell us that the first Embargo destroyed our commerce, when it is notorious that this measure prevented millions from capture under the British orders and French decrees. The embargo was not laid till those orders and decrees swept us of every vestige of commerce.
The federalist tell us they were opposed to the declaration of war, and that all its calamities would have been prevented had they been in power. Federalist opposed to the war.” – did they not because the government so long bore and forebore, and continued to negotiate, accuse the administration of cowardice and pusillanimity – id they not insultingly sneer that the government ‘could not be kicked into a war’?
Says a federal paper –‘We see, we feel, well now that we are on the verge of ruin’ – and exhorts the citizens of New Hampshire, in order to extricate the nation from this impending ruin, to elect Daniel Webster and the federal list as members to Congress! What would have been the situation of this nation had the same Daniel Webster and his colleagues succeeded in accomplishing their wishes at the two preceding sessions of Congress? It is well known that these men opposed with their might all appropriations for the army and navy; it is well known that they voted against every measure intended to annoy the enemy – against every measure preparatory to the defense of our country.
What would have been our situation had these men succeeded? We should not , it is true, have been ‘on the verge of ruin’ for we should have been absolutely ruined! Will their advocates pretend that any thing done by these men in Congress has bettered the situation of the nation? Will they pretend that these men have done aught towards bringing peace? They have been on all occasions opposed to the war – so opposed that they would permit the enemy to have sacked and burnt every town on the seaboard before they could consent to resist them.
But in all the arguments of the great, the eloquent, the ‘pre-eminent’ Mr. Daniel Webster ( and he is the only one of the members from New Hampshire that has opened his mouth) have we seen aught that has been one cent advantage to the country? Federalist talk much of Mr. Websters’ talents - they tell us he is an ornament, a bright refulgent luminary in our political constellation; and they make it unpardonable sin in the democrat who disputes Mr. Webster’s extraordinary sagacity, and knowledge, and elocution; but they show nothing to prove his ‘pre-eminent talents.'