Webster supported Clay's proposals for a grand compromise that would save the Union. On a cold day in January 1850,the two men met and had their first real conversation in nearly a decade. Webster agreed with the overall plan and praised Clay for another patriotic compromise. Webster would actually miss many of the early debates regarding the compromise, he had been busy arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. Webster seems to have initially dismissed the growing crisis stating in January that "the Union is not in danger." However by March (which coincided with the court going into recess) Webster felt that the time had come for him to act. Few people actually knew what stance Webster would take, many in New England hoped he would back Taylor's plan and take a hard line stance against the expansion of slavery. Southerners hoped he would side with them in return for their support in the election of 1852, possibly extending the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific and dividing California into two states. What many seemed to agree on was that "the Union was in the pocket of Daniel Webster"^2. Webster rose and gave one of the most famous openings in American history:
"Mr. President, I wish to speak today, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American, and a member of the Senate of the United States. . . . I speak for the preservation of the Union. Hear me for my cause"^3
Webster spoke for some three hours, the speech in its entirety was certainly not one of his best but he spoke forcibly in favor of Union and compromise. Webster pointed out that a legal barrier to slavery in the west was no longer necessary for slavery as geography already prevented slavery from spreading into the new territories. At the same time he recognized that the Wilmot proviso was an insult to the institutions and character of the South, and a needles proposition owing to the before mentioned "natural exclusion". He considered the return of fugitive slaves a constitutional duty of every officer bound by their oaths to uphold the Constitution, again drilling in his support of the Constitution and the law for which he was so famous. Webster went on to state
"Never did there devolve on any generation of men higher trusts than now devolve upon us, for the preservation of this Constitution and the harmony and peace of all who are destined to live under it. Let us make our generation one of the strongest and brightest links in that golden chain which is destined, I fondly believe, to grapple the people of all the States to this Constitution for ages to come."
Webster thus spoke for Union and the Constitution much as he had in his second reply to Hayne nearly two decades before. Webster's speech was celebrated across the country as a splendid exhibition of patriotism and statesmen ship, however things were quite different in New England. Few in New England were willing to defend him, and his reputation and political fortunes never fully recovered. Many accused him of selling out to the South in return for a promise of the presidency in 1852. Anti-Webster meetings were held and comparisons with Benedict Arnold were commonplace. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote of Webster
"Liberty! Liberty Pho! Let Mr.Webster for decency's sake shut his lips once and forever on this word.The word liberty in the mouth of Mr.Webster sounds like the word love in the mouth of a courtezan."^4
Conservative Whigs stood by Webster, known as cotton Whigs for their mercantile interests in Southern states they were often less radical in their anti-slavery views. The conscience whigs, so called because they had a "conscience" over the issue of slavery as opposed to the cotton whigs, decried him. Webster's speech would help hasten the split between the two groups.
Webster opposed Taylor's position on Texas and California, because he later stated that he felt Taylor's strategy would lead to Civil War. In addition both Clay and Webster despite their differences were mistrustful of Taylor, neither seemed to recognize him as a true Whig and as a result Taylor was left without a strong leader to present his views in Congress( Seward was more or less Taylor's spokesperson but his own speech after Calhoun,Webster, and Clay had spoken was more his personal opinion than the administration's standpoint).
Webster to Franklin Haven, Jan 13, 1850
New Orleans Picayune, March 7, 1850
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/seventh-march.html
Journals of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Ralph H. Orth and A. R. Ferguson, eds. (Cambridge, 1971), XI, 345-346
To Clarify for those not familiar with Taylor's plan in regards to New Mexico and California was to skip the territorial phase as quickly as possible and admit them as new states into the Union. This would remove the issue of slavery from Congress and place it in the hands of the respective state government. New Mexico And Texas had a disputed border, with much of modern day eastern New Mexico being claimed by Texas. Both Taylor and Texas prepared for military action over the border, and Taylor does deserve props for his commitment to Union. Historians generally fault him for being too inflexible in regards to his plans, and are divided if his threat of force would have convinced the South to back down or lead to Civil War.
Clay's plan would call for the admission of California on their own own terms ( a free state but with Southern honor saved). Texas's borders would be fixed where they are currently but the public debt of the state would be assumed by the Federal government.