Nullification, Secession, Webster's Argument, and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutionsconsidered in Reference to the Constitution and Historically

A historical account written in the late 19th century. The book examines the constitutional debates surrounding nullification and secession in the context of the United States' formation and the preservation of the Union. It specifically focuses on the arguments presented by Daniel Webster in response to southern claims of state sovereignty, particularly those advanced by Robert Hayne and John C. Calhoun, and explores the interpretation of the Constitution through a historical lens. The opening of this work introduces the author's motivation to address a perceived misrepresentation of Webster's stance on the nullification doctrine, which was often defended by southern contemporaries. Loring lays the groundwork by highlighting the debates of the early 19th century, notably the fierce exchanges between Webster and Hayne in the Senate regarding the legitimacy of state rights to secede from the Union. He argues that the Union was intended to be national and indissoluble, thereby challenging the notion that states had the authority to nullify federal laws or secede from the Union. This perspective sets the stage for a deeper exploration of constitutional interpretation and the historical context of these contentious issues.