Final answer:
The decision in McCulloch v. Maryland was surprising because it was unanimous. Daniel Webster and John Marshall meant that the power to tax involves the power to destroy.
Step-by-step explanation:
The decision in McCulloch v. Maryland was surprising because it was unanimous, meaning all the Supreme Court Justices agreed on the outcome. This is surprising because it is rare for the Court to have a unanimous decision on such a significant issue. Daniel Webster and John Marshall meant that the power to tax has the potential to destroy or undermine the entity being taxed. They were arguing that if states were allowed to tax the federal government, it could weaken or destroy the federal government's ability to carry out its constitutional responsibilities.
The unanimous decision in McCulloch v. Maryland was indeed striking given the rarity of such consensus, especially on significant issues. Daniel Webster and Chief Justice John Marshall articulated a crucial perspective, contending that the power to tax harbors the inherent potential to erode or even dismantle the entity subject to taxation. Their argument emphasized the precarious balance inherent in the federal system, cautioning against states' authority to levy taxes on the federal government. They foresaw that such taxation could undermine the federal government's capacity to fulfill its constitutional duties, underscoring the pivotal role of this decision in shaping the dynamics of federal-state relations and reinforcing the supremacy of the national government.