Daniel Webster Will End His Feud With the Industrialist/Politician Abbott Lawrence That Had Cost Him the Whig Party Presidential Nomination

Henry Clay of Kentucky and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts were rivals for leadership of the Whig Party, as well as for being its standard-bearer in presidential elections.

Abbott Lawrence was among the most important merchants, industrialists, and philanthropists of his day, and is credited as the founder of New England’s influential textile industry. Active in politics, Lawrence represented Massachusetts in Congress several times, and was an active advocate of Henry Clay’s “American System”, which consisted of three mutually reenforcing parts: a tariff to protect and promote American industry; a national bank to foster commerce; and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other “internal improvements” to develop profitable markets. According to John Quincy Adams, Lawrence was “the leading man of Whig politics in Boston”.

Lawrence suspected Webster’s fidelity to the American System and supported Clay against Webster in their rivalry. It is also quite possible that Lawrence may have acted in part out of the desire to promote his own political ambitions in Massachusetts, as well as his intention to maintain his authority in Boston Whiggery. This led to a feud between Webster and Lawrence.

In 1840, Webster gained influence over President William Henry Harrison and his successor John Tyler, serving as their Secretary of State. Many Whigs castigated Tyler as a renegade, and opposed Webster’s cooperation with him. Lawrence was one of those, and he maneuvered with mixed success to use Webster’s stance as a lever to challenge his authority in Massachusetts. In September 1842, Lawrence was president of the Massachusetts Whig Convention that proclaimed a full separation between Tyler and the state’s Whigs (thus implicitly criticizing Webster). Lawrence then advocated that the convention endorse Clay for President, though the election was in 1844, two years away. Webster, who entertained hopes of being the Whig presidential nominee himself, tried in vain to prevent the Clay endorsement, as if the Whigs of his own home state came out for Clay, Webster chances would evaporate. So when the convention came out for Clay, Lawrence was effectively closing the door on Webster’s presidential prospects. Webster followed by denouncing the convention in an address that was poorly received, with many stating that it split the Whigs into Tyler vs Clay factions. John Quincy Adams said the speech was “bitter as wormwood to the whole of the Whig Party”.

In 1843 Webster tried to solidify his backing and win support away from Lawrence and the other cotton manufacturers by advocating a form of free trade (which was anathema to the manufacturers). Showing Lawrence’s reach, he not only lined up Massachusetts in opposition, but went to England to use his influence to make sure that failure of Webster’s measure would not be received negatively there. The Webster tariff was abandoned. Webster chose that moment to resign as Secretary of State and return to Massachusetts. He knew that if he was to reactivate his political career and return to Washington, he would need to mend fences. He reached out to Clay, who allowed for a reconciliation. In Massachusetts that reconciliation was more difficult, as the factions disagreed over the nominee for governor. Webster managed to deprive Lawrence of this plum, but there was an uneasy truce. As Webster dove back into state politics in November 1843, Lawrence worked to minimize his influence.

In 1844 Lawrence was a delegate to the Whig National Convention that nominated Clay, and in the election he was one of Clay’s most ardent supporters. Webster, too, worked for this ticket, and hoped to thereby win back his Senate seat. When this effort stalled in 1844, and another Senate opening presented itself for 1845, Webster determined to concentrate on reclaiming his old seat in the latter year. Lawrence initially supported other candidates. Webster wooed anti-slavery Whigs, and in January 1845 declared his opposition to the annexation of Texas. This outreach met with success, and added to his already-existing support, a movement in his favor picked up real momentum. Lawrence saw the way the wind was blowing and decided not to oppose Webster’s return to the Senate. Webster won back his seat.

In July 1845, with Webster again entrenched in the Senate, Lawrence made an attempt to end the estrangement between them. He enlisted the aid of Nathan Appleton, a prominent merchant, politician and member of Congress who was a supporter and friend of Webster, but was also close to Lawrence, so much so that he became Lawrence’s biographer. Appleton contacted Webster in August 1845, telling him that a reconciliation with Lawrence was possible, though not mentioning that Lawrence had already broached the subject with him. Webster responded positively, and Appleton suggested that he make a few changes in his letter to help effect the desired result. This was done and Webster sent a second letter. Appleton then wrote Lawrence of Webster’s acceptance, and Lawrence in turn answered sympathetically. At that point, as described in “The Webster-Lawrence Feud” by Kinley Brauer, Appleton forwarded to Lawrence the second letter he had received from Webster, and this, as Brauer states, “completed the reconciliation”.

This is the very letter of reconciliation sent by Webster to Appleton and forwarded to Lawrence. Autograph letter signed, Marshfield, Mass., August 8, 1845, to Appleton. “I have received your letter of the 4th instant, and am obliged to you for it, regarding it as a proof of friendship and kindness. I assure you, my dear sir, that I have no wish to sustain towards Mr. Lawrence any other relations than those of that cordial regard which subsisted between us for so many years. I fully appreciate the value of his character, his talents, and the useful part which he acts in life, public and private. We have heretofore been politically associated in Congress, and in another character have cooperated in emergencies of public affairs, not that important, and I trust not disadvantageously to the country. It will give me much satisfaction to renew my friendly relations with Mr. Lawrence, and that hereafter they should be in all respects such as they formerly were. In regard to what has since taken place, let bygones be bygones if such be his pleasure; and may nothing during our future lives occur to mar the good understandings, public and private, which it is my wish to preserve and cultivate.” This came to us with some privately held papers of Lawrence himself.

The reconciliation thus effected could not withstand the stresses of the 1848 election, when Webster and Lawrence were again opposed, the former seeking the presidency and the latter the vice presidency. Neither, however, achieved his goals. Their feud kept two of the most able men of their time from realizing their ambitions, and thus had a significant impact on the politics of the ante-bellum era.