Daily Inspiration Quote by Daniel Webster

Webster is giving political self-contradiction a constitutional alibi. In a culture that loves to catch leaders in “gotcha” reversals, he draws a sharper line: inconsistency isn’t necessarily hypocrisy; it can be the price of governing inside a moving target. The sentence is built like a lawyer’s brief. “Inconsistencies of opinion” sounds like a charge read aloud. Then comes the exculpatory clause, “arising from changes of circumstances,” quietly relocating blame from character to context. By the time we reach “often justifiable,” he’s not demanding applause for flip-flopping, just insisting on a reasonable standard of review.

The subtext is about legitimacy. In the early American republic, public men were expected to project steadiness as proof of virtue, yet the nation’s realities were anything but steady: shifting party coalitions, volatile sectional pressures, economic panics, territorial expansion, and the escalating moral and political crisis of slavery. Webster himself became a case study in this dilemma. His support for the Compromise of 1850, including the Fugitive Slave Act, looked to many like a betrayal of earlier antislavery rhetoric. This line reads like a preemptive defense of statesmanship as situational judgment rather than personal purity.

The rhetorical trick is that he normalizes change without sanctifying opportunism. “Often” keeps the door open for condemnation; “circumstances” has to do real work, implying that facts on the ground can mutate enough to demand a new position. Webster is arguing for an ethics of responsiveness: consistency is admirable, but not if it’s just rigidity dressed up as principle.