. Even the revenue system of this country, by which the whole of our pecuniary resources are derived from indirect taxation, from duties upon imports, has done much to weaken the responsibility of our federal rulers to the people, and has made them, in some measure, careless of their rights, and regardless of the high trust committed to their care. No hanging over the abyss of disunion, no weighing of the chances, no doubting as to what the Constitution was worth, no placing of liberty before Union, but "liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable." Daniel Webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the danger of the states' rights doctrine, which permitted each State to decide for itself which laws were unconstitutional, claiming it would lead to civil war. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts while he exonerates me personally from the charge, intimates that there is a party in the country who are looking to disunion. If this Constitution, sir, be the creature of state Legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the volitions of its creators. Post-Civil War, as the nation rebuilt and reconciled the balance between federal and state government, federal law became the supreme law of the land, just as Webster desired. Consolidation, like the tariff, grates upon his ear. To them, the more money the central government made, the stronger it became and the more it took rights away from the states to govern themselves. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. He joined Hayne in using this opportunity to try to detach the West from the East, and restore the old cooperation of the West and the South against New England. Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster's "Second Reply" to South Carolina Senator Robert Y. Hayne has long been thought of as a great oratorical celebration of American Nationalism in a period of sectional conflict. And what has been the consequence? In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. . These verses recount the first occurrence of slavery. Webster's second reply to Hayne, in January 1830, became a famous defense of the federal union: "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable." Just beneath the surface of this debate lay the elements of the developing sectional crisis between North and South. . We could not send them back to the shores from whence their fathers had been taken; their numbers forbade the thought, even if we did not know that their condition here is infinitely preferable to what it possibly could be among the barren sands and savage tribes of Africa; and it was wholly irreconcilable with all our notions of humanity to tear asunder the tender ties which they had formed among us, to gratify the feelings of a false philanthropy. Well, you're not alone. The Senate debates between Whig Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Democrat Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina in January 1830 started out as a disagreement over the sale of Western lands and turned into one of the most famous verbal contests in American history. . These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened . . On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than in Mexico. Then, in January of 1830, a senator from Connecticut introduced a proposal to the Senate stating that the federal government should stop surveying the lands west of the Mississippi River. The Webster-Hayne Debate: Defining Nationhood in the Early American See Genesis 9:2027. Between January and May 1830, twenty-one of the forty-eight senators delivered a staggering sixty-five speeches on the nature of the Union. As a pious son of Federalism, Webster went the full length of the required defense. Competing Conceptions of Union and Ordered Liberty in The Webster-Hayne I admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution, and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to, when a revolution is to be justified. Webster's argument that the constitution should stand as a powerful uniting force between the states rather than a treaty between sovereign states held as a key concept in America's ideas about the federal government. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. The excited crowd which had packed the Senate chamber, filling every seat on the floor and in the galleries, and all the available standing room, dispersed after the orator's last grand apostrophe had died away in the air, with national pride throbbing at the heart. The Significance of the Frontier in American Histo South Carolinas Ordinance of Nullification. Is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? . Ah! . Hayne, Robert Young | South Carolina Encyclopedia lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. In contrasting the state of Ohio with Kentucky, for the purpose of pointing out the superiority of the former, and of attributing that superiority to the existence of slavery, in the one state, and its absence in the other, I thought I could discern the very spirit of the Missouri question[1] intruded into this debate, for objects best known to the gentleman himself. . The significance of Daniel Webster's argument went far beyond the immediate proposal at hand. Where in these debates do we see a possible argument in defense of Constitutional secession by the states, later claimed by the Southern Confederacy before, during, and after the Civil War? On January 19, 1830, Hayne attacked the Foot Resolution and labeled the Northeasterners as selfish and unprincipled for their support of protectionism and conservative land policies. Senator Foote, of Connecticut, submitted a proposition inquiring into the expediency of limiting the sales of public lands to those already in the market. As sovereign states, each state could individually interpret the Constitution and even leave the Union altogether. State governments were in control of their own affairs and expected little intervention from the federal government. Address to the People of the United States, by the What are the main points of difference between Webster and Hayne, especially on the question of the nature of the Union and the Constitution? . But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. . He must cut it with his sword. I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. Whose agent is it? Most people of the time supported a small central government and strong state governments, so the federal government was much weaker than you might have expected. Crittenden Compromise Plan & Reception | What was the Crittenden Compromise? Southern states advocated for strong, sovereign state governments, a small federal government, the western expansion of the agricultural economy, and with it, the maintenance of the institution of slavery. Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. The measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. The debates between daniel webster of massachusetts and robert hayne of south carolina gave. Hayne was a great orator, filled with fiery passion and eloquent prose. What was going on? Webster-Hayne Debate - Federalism in America - CSF Webster's "Second Reply to Hayne" was generally regarded as "the most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress."[1]. . When, however, the gentleman proceeded to contrast the state of Ohio with Kentucky, to the disadvantage of the latter, I listened to him with regret. Hayne began the debate by speaking out against a proposal by the northern states which suggested that the federal government should stop its surveyance of land west of the Mississippi and shift its focus to selling the land it had already surveyed. We all know that civil institutions are established for the public benefit, and that when they cease to answer the ends of their existence, they may be changed. Webster rose the next day in his seat to make his reply. South Carolinas Declaration of the Causes of Sece Distribution of the Slave Population by State. Sir, the opinion which the honorable gentleman maintains, is a notion, founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this government, and of the foundation on which it stands. There was no clear winner of the debate, but the Union's victory over the Confederacy just a few decades later brought Webster's ideas to fruition. But his calm, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. These irreconcilable views of national supremacy and state sovereignty framed the constitutional struggle that led to Civil War thirty years later. . It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to bear up any other than free men. I'm imagining that your answer is probably 'I do.' Pet Banks History & Effects | What are Pet Banks? Hayne maintained that the states retained the authority to nullify federal law, Webster that federal law expressed the will of the American people and could not be nullified by a minority of the people in a state. I regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest of evils, both moral and political. On that system, Ohio and Carolina are different governments, and different countries, connected here, it is true, by some slight and ill-defined bond of union, but, in all main respects, separate and diverse. The senator from Massachusetts, in denouncing what he is pleased to call the Carolina doctrine,[5] has attempted to throw ridicule upon the idea that a state has any constitutional remedy by the exercise of its sovereign authority against a gross, palpable, and deliberate violation of the Constitution. He called it an idle or a ridiculous notion, or something to that effect; and added, that it would make the Union a mere rope of sand. Help if you can :) please and ty . . This statement, though strong, is no stronger than the strictest truth will warrant. It has always been regarded as a matter of domestic policy, left with the states themselves, and with which the federal government had nothing to do. The debate continued, in some ways not being fully settled until the completion of the Civil War affirmed the power of the federal government to preserve the Union over the sovereignty of the states to leave it. If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have war. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of unplanned speeches in the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830 between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. The taxes paid by foreign nations to export American cotton, for example, generated lots of money for the government. . Hayne's First Speech (January 19, 1830) Webster's First Reply to Hayne (January 20, 1830) Hayne's Second Speech (January 21, 1830) Webster's Second Reply to Hayne (January 26-27, 1830) This page was last edited on 13 June 2021, at . I understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the states, thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the exercise of power by the general government, of checking it, and of compelling it to conform to their opinion of the extent of its powers. . T he Zionist-evangelical back story goes back several decades, with 90-year-old televangelist Pat Robertson being a prime case study.. One of the more notable "coincidences" or anomalies Winter Watch brings to your attention is the image of Robertson on the cover of Time magazine in 1986 back before the public was red pilled by the Internet -as the pastor posed with a gesture called . Would it be safe to confide such a treasure to the keeping of our national rulers? All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. New England, the Union, and the Constitution in its integrity, all were triumphantly vindicated. to expose them to the temptations inseparable from the direction and control of a fund which might be enlarged or diminished almost at pleasure, without imposing burthens upon the people? Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. foote wanted to stop surveying lands until they could sell the ones already looked at It was of a partizan and censorious character and drew nearly all the chief senators out. It was a great and salutary measure of prevention. So they could finish selling the lands already surveyed. By the time it ended nine days later, the focus had shifted to the vastly more cosmic concerns of slavery and the nature of the federal Union. Daniel Webster argued against nullification (the idea that states could disobey federal laws) arguing in favor of a strong federal government which would bind the states together under the Constitution. At the time of the debate, Webster was serving his term as Senator of Massachusetts. . It cannot be doubted, and is not denied, that before the formation of the constitution, each state was an independent sovereignty, possessing all the rights and powers appertaining to independent nations; nor can it be denied that, after the Constitution was formed, they remained equally sovereign and independent, as to all powers, not expressly delegated to the federal government. This was the man to fire an aristocracy of fellow citizens ready to arm when their interests were in danger, and upon him, it devolved to advance the cause of South Carolina, break down the tariff, and fascinate the Union with the new rattlesnake theories. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in the Convention to be less rigid, on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected.. . . Can any man believe, sir, that, if twenty-three millions per annum was now levied by direct taxation, or by an apportionment of the same among the states, instead of being raised by an indirect tax, of the severe effect of which few are aware, that the waste and extravagance, the unauthorized imposition of duties, and appropriations of money for unconstitutional objects, would have been tolerated for a single year? Even more pointedly, his speech reflected a decade of arguments from other Massachusetts conservatives who argued against supposed threats to New England's social order.[2]. . Webster-Hayne Debate by Stefan M. Brooks Go to these cities now, and ask the question. One of the most storied match-ups in Senate history, the 1830 Webster-Hayne debate began with a beef between Northeast states and Western states over a plan to restrict . On the one side it is contended that the public land ought to be reserved as a permanent fund for revenue, and future distribution among the states, while, on the other, it is insisted that the whole of these lands of right belong to, and ought to be relinquished to, the states in which they lie. . We see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow. Web hardcover $30.00 paperback $17.00 kindle nook book ibook. . Webster scoffed at the idea of consolidation, labeling it "that perpetual cry, both of terror and delusion." What Hayne and his supporters actually meant to do, Webster claimed, was to resist those means that might strengthen the bonds of common interest. Sir, when gentlemen speak of the effects of a common fund, belonging to all the states, as having a tendency to consolidation, what do they mean? This is the true constitutional consolidation. . . What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? I am a Unionist, and in this sense a national Republican. The debate itself, a nine-day long unplanned exchange between Senators Robert Y. Hayne and Daniel Webster, directly addressed the methods by which the federal government was generating revenue, namely through protective tariffs and the selling of federal lands in the newly acquired western territories. More specifically, some of the issues facing Congress during this period included: Robert Y. Hayne served as Senator of South Carolina from 1823 to 1832. God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. I wish to see no new powers drawn to the general government; but I confess I rejoice in whatever tends to strengthen the bond that unites us, and encourages the hope that our Union may be perpetual. The people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. . . The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Senator Daniel Webster] has gone out of his way to pass a high eulogium on the state of Ohio. . [Its leader] would have a knot before him, which he could not untie. This seemed like an Eastern spasm of jealousy at the progress of the West. Debate on the Constitutionality of the Mexican War, Letters and Journals from the Oregon Trail. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. . She has a BA in political science. States' rights (South) vs. nationalism (North). Jackson himself would raise a national toast for 'the Union' later that year. . It is to state, and to defend, what I conceive to be the true principles of the Constitution under which we are here assembled. Compare And Contrast The Tension Between North And South. 1830's APUSH Flashcards | Quizlet This debate exposed the critically different understandings of the nature of the American. So soon as the cessions were obtained, it became necessary to make provision for the government and disposition of the territory . Record of the Organization and Proceedings of The Massachusetts Lawmakers Investigate Working Condit State (Colonial) Legislatures>Massachusetts State Legislature. Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitution under which we sit. Webster-Hayne debate - Wikisource, the free online library . . When the honorable member rose, in his first speech, I paid him the respect of attentive listening; and when he sat down, though surprised, and I must say even astonished, at some of his opinions, nothing was farther from my intention than to commence any personal warfare: and through the whole of the few remarks I made in answer, I avoided, studiously and carefully, everything which I thought possible to be construed into disrespect. The Virginia Resolution asserted that when the federal government undertook the deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of powers not granted to it in the constitution, states had the right and duty to interpose their authority to prevent this evil. . They attack nobody, and menace nobody. A speech by Louisiana Senator Edward Livingston, however, neatly explains how American nationhood encompasses elements of both Webster and Hayne's ideas. Help please? What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? The It laid the interdict against personal servitude, in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper, also, than all local constitutions. It was plenary then, and never having been surrendered, must be plenary now. The 1830 WebsterHayne debate centered around the South Carolina nullification crisis of the late 1820s, but historians have largely ignored the sectional interests underpinning Webster's argument on behalf of Unionism and a transcendent nationalism. . - Women's Rights Facts & Significance, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points: Definition, Speech & Summary, Fireside Chats: Definition & Significance, JFK's New Frontier: Definition, Speech & Program. We met it as a practical question of obligation and duty. He remained a Southern Unionist through his long public career and a good type of the growing class of statesman devoted to slave interests who loved the Union as it was and doted upon its compromises. Hayne argued that the sovereign and independent states had created the Union to promote their particular interests. . The Webster-Hayne debate laid out key issues faced by the Senate in the 1820s and 1830s. Perhaps a quotation from a speech in Parliament in 1803 of Lord Castlereagh, Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry (17691822) during a debate over the conduct of British officials in India. Hayne, South Carolina's foremost Senator, was the chosen champion; and the cause of his State, both in its right and wrong sides, could have found no abler exponent while [Vice President] Calhoun's official station kept him from the floor. Daniel Webster stood as a ready and formidable opponent from the north who, at different stages in his career, represented both the states of New Hampshire and Massachusetts. . An error occurred trying to load this video. The Revelation on Celestial Marriage: Trouble Amon Hon. But the feeling is without all adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists wholly groundless. Sir, there exists, moreover, a deep and settled conviction of the benefits, which result from a close connection of all the states, for purposes of mutual protection and defense. . I said, only, that it was highly wise and useful in legislating for the northwestern country, while it was yet a wilderness, to prohibit the introduction of slaves: and added, that I presumed, in the neighboring state of Kentucky, there was no reflecting and intelligent gentleman, who would doubt, that if the same prohibition had been extended, at the same early period, over that commonwealth, her strength and population would, at this day, have been far greater than they are. Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. The Webster-Hayne debate, which again was just one section of this greater discussion in the Senate, is traditionally considered to have begun when South Carolina senator Robert Y. Hayne stood to argue against Connecticut's proposal, accusing the northeastern states of trying to stall development of the West so that southern agricultural interests couldn't expand. . Tariff of Abominations of 1828 | What was the Significance of the Tariff of Abominations? His speech was indeed a powerful one of its eloquence and personality. What can I say? The Webster-Hayne debate was a famous debate in the United States between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina.It happened on January 19-27, 1830. I must now beg to ask, sir, whence is this supposed right of the states derived?where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the Union? Certainly, sir, I am, and ever have been of that opinion. Shedding weak tears over sufferings which had existence only in their own sickly imaginations, these friends of humanity set themselves systematically to work to seduce the slaves of the South from their masters. Let's start by looking at the United States around 1830. The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States H What Are the Colored People Doing for Themselves? Are we in that condition still? Sir, an immense national treasury would be a fund for corruption. Sir, all our difficulties on this subject have arisen from interference from abroad, which has disturbed, and may again disturb, our domestic tranquility, just so far as to bring down punishment upon the heads of the unfortunate victims of a fanatical and mistaken humanity. Explore the Webster-Hayne debate. . She has worked as a university writing consultant for over three years. We will not look back to inquire whether our fathers were guiltless in introducing slaves into this country. But, sir, the gentleman is mistaken. The Webster-Hayne Debates | Teaching American History They undertook to form a general government, which should stand on a new basisnot a confederacy, not a league, not a compact between states, but a Constitution; a popular government, founded in popular election, directly responsible to the people themselves, and divided into branches, with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties. . Since as Vice President and President of the Senate, Calhoun could not take place in the debate, Hayne represented the pro-nullification point-of-view. It was motivated by a dispute over the continued sale of western lands, an important source of revenue for the federal government. We resolved to make the best of the situation in which Providence had placed us, and to fulfil the high trust which had developed upon us as the owners of slaves, in the only way in which such a trust could be fulfilled, without spreading misery and ruin throughout the land. The idea that a state could nullify a federal law, associated with South Carolina, especially after the publication of John C. Calhouns South Carolina Exposition and Protest (1828) in response to the tariff passed in that year. This feeling, always carefully kept alive, and maintained at too intense a heat to admit discrimination or reflection, is a lever of great power in our political machine. . For the next several days, the men traded speeches which contemporaries of the time described as the greatest orations ever delivered in the Senate. He tells us, we have heard much, of late, about consolidation; that it is the rallying word for all who are endeavoring to weaken the Union by adding to the power of the states. But consolidation, says the gentleman, was the very object for which the Union was formed; and in support of that opinion, he read a passage from the address of the president of the Convention[3] to Congress (which he assumes to be authority on his side of the question.) One of those was the Webster-Hayne debate, a series of unplanned speeches presented before the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830. . The other way was through the sale of federally-owned land to private citizens. Enveloping all of these changes was an ever-growing tension over the economy, as southern states firmly defended slavery and northern states advocated for a more industrial, slave-free market. Now that was a good debate! . At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . We had no other general government. This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. The main issue of the Webster-Hayne Debate was the nature of the country that had been created by the Constitution. The Webster-Hayne debate concluded with Webster's ringing endorsement of "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable." In contrast, Hayne espoused the radical states' rights doctrine of nullification, believing that a state could prevent a federal law from being enforced within its borders. Let us look at his probablemodus operandi. Hayne entered the U.S. Senate in 1823 and soon became prominent as a spokesman for the South and for the . Webster stood in favor of Connecticut's proposal that the federal government should stop surveying western land and sell the land it had already surveyed to boost it's revenue and strengthen it's authority. It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. Why was the Hayne-Webster debate important? - eNotes.com 1. emigration the movement of people from one place to another 2. immigration a situation in which resources are being used up at a faster rate than they can be replenished 3. migration the leaving of one's homeland to settle in a new place 4. overpopulation the movement of people to a new country 5. sustainable development a situation in which the birth rate is not sufficient to replace the . . Hayne launched his confident javelin at the New England States. Hayne quotes from Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, December 26, 1825, https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-william-branch-giles/?_sft_document_author=thomas-jefferson. . Webster-Hayne debate - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia No doubt can exist, that, before the states entered into the compact, they possessed the right to the fullest extent, of determining the limits of their own powersit is incident to all sovereignty. The 1830 Webster-Hayne debate centered around the South Carolina nullification crisis of the late 1820s, but historians have largely ignored the sectional interests underpinning Webster's argument on behalf of Unionism and a transcendent nationalism. . The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches delivered before the Senate in 1830. Webster realized that if the social, political, and economic elite of Massachusetts and the Northeast were to once again lay claim to national leadership, he had to justify New England's previous history of sectionalism within a framework of nationalistic progression.
Can You Be Allergic To Peanuts But Not Peanut Butter,
Knife's Edge Deaths Maine,
Articles W