Daniel in the Lion's Den

Early this summer I went to a Cape Cod bookstore in search of a good summer read.  I walked out with a history book called "America's Great Debate," written by Fergus M. Bordewich.  It tells the compelling story of the debates in Congress that led up to the Civil War, including whether slavery should be permitted to spread to the western territories as they were being considered for statehood.  The book, which I highly recommend, serves as a stirring reminder that the divisions we see in our country today are not unusual.  Rather, America has always faced political division, and once was carried by it to the extreme consequence of a war between the states.

I have not finished the book, but am in a chapter describing how Southerners in Congress were beginning to call for secession in 1850 as Northerners wanted to admit California as a state under laws that would outlaw slavery within its borders.  As the calls for secession became louder, Daniel Webster gave a rousing speech against it.  In its most powerful section, Webster warned those who were under the illusion that secession could be achieved peacefully that they were horribly mistaken.  He also offered compromises to the South about slavery that were anathema to his Massachusetts colleagues then, and remain disturbing today.

But despite Webster's unfortunate willingness to compromise on some issues towards which he should have remained resolutely opposed, there is one passage from his speech that resonates for those of us who bemoan our country's current partisan divide.  In words that apply equally today, Webster attacked the absolutism in Congress that eschewed compromise.  Rather than describe it, I will simply quote it, from page 167 of Bordewich's excellent book:

In all such disputes, there will sometimes be found men with whom everything is absolute; absolutely right, or absolutely wrong.  They deal with morals as with mathematics; and they think that what is right may be distinguished from what is wrong with the precision of an algebraic equation.  They have, therefore, none too much charity towards others who differ from them.  They are apt, too, to think that nothing is good but what is perfect, and that there are no compromises or modifications to be made in consideration of difference of opinion or in deference to other men's judgment.  If their perspicacious judgment enables them to detect a spot on the face of the sun, they think that a good reason why the sun should be struck down from heaven.  They prefer the chance of running into utter darkness to living in heavenly light, if that heavenly light be not absolutely without any imperfection.

If these words were directed at Northerners who supported abolition, Webster was wrong to speak them.   Slavery, unlike most matters that Congress undertakes to address, was an absolute wrong, and it took nothing short of America's bloodiest war and a heroic President to end it.  But while it would have been wrong for the Union to compromise on slavery, today we see our politicians refuse to give ground on issues for which there is no comparable moral barrier to compromise, like whether taxes should be raised to help reduce the deficit.  Maybe, on issues like these, our political leaders should take a lesson from history and heed Daniel Webster's call.