This paper analyzes John Greenleaf Whittier's 1850 poem "Ichabod," written in response to Senator Daniel Webster's support of the Missouri Compromise. The essay situates the poem within its historical and political context, explaining Whittier's abolitionist convictions and his sense of personal betrayal when a man he had admired publicly endorsed legislation that would permit slavery to continue. Through a close reading of the poem's major stanzas, the paper traces recurring themes of fallen glory, moral failure, and grief, arguing that Whittier's language moves from bitter anger to sorrowful mourning as he depicts Webster's irreversible loss of honor and spiritual standing.
To understand the poem "Ichabod," it is necessary to understand the historical context that led John Greenleaf Whittier to write it. Whittier was a poet who lived in New Hampshire during the 1800s, at a time when the slavery issue in the United States was a matter of serious and heated debate. Although he was white, Whittier was very strongly opposed to slavery. In New Hampshire, however, which had originally been a slave state, there were still many people who supported it. The poem was written in 1850 after a speech was delivered by the politician Daniel Webster, who publicly announced that he was in favor of a law known as the Missouri Compromise.
The Missouri Compromise was a law that would allow the practice of slavery to continue, and Whittier felt angry and betrayed by Webster for his decision to support it. His anger was particularly sharp because he had once considered Webster a friend. In addition, Webster's personal convictions were against slavery; yet despite his own beliefs, he supported a law that would allow the practice to continue. For Webster, supporting this measure was the lesser evil — he believed it would keep the Union together. For Whittier and many like him, however, it was the most heinous of treacheries to go against one's own convictions in order to support an inhumane practice. Because of this, Whittier wrote the poem to express all the negative emotions he felt toward Webster (Reuben).
The bitter language of glory lost and the sting of betrayal can be seen throughout the poem. The first stanza opens with the words "So fallen! so lost!" — a reflection of the loss of respect and esteem Whittier felt for his former friend after hearing him deliver a speech in favor of the Missouri Compromise. The fact that he once held Webster in high regard is clear in the lines "the light withdrawn / Which he once wore! The glory from his gray hairs gone / Forevermore!" In the second stanza, Whittier implies that Webster has fallen so far from grace that even "scorn and wrath" are too good for him. Rather, all that Webster deserves are "pitying tears."
In the third stanza, the reader gets a sense of the former respect that Whittier had for Webster. He refers to his former friend as "he who might / Have lighted up and led his age." The word "might" is important here; it expresses what Webster had the potential to accomplish, but failed to achieve. Instead of leading his age, Whittier writes that he "Falls back in night."
"Webster portrayed as spiritually lost and goaded by darkness"
"Repeated themes amplify sorrow over Webster's fall"
"Webster retains power but is called a fallen angel"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.