Most are forgettable, to put it charitably. And who are its enemies? . Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 26 and 27, 1830. Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. 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. The heated speeches were unplanned and stemmed from the debate over a resolution by Connecticut Senator Samuel A. Read reviews from world's largest community for readers. The great debate, which culminated in Hayne's encounter with Webster, came about in a somewhat casual way. Nor shall I stop there. During the course of the debates, the senators touched on pressing political issues of the daythe tariff, Western lands, internal improvementsbecause behind these and others were two very different understandings of the origin and nature of the American Union. 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? . . It was of a partizan and censorious character and drew nearly all the chief senators out. 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 . "The most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress" may have been Webster's 1830 "Second Reply to Hayne", a South Carolina Senator who had echoed John C. Calhoun's case for state's rights.. Hayne quotes from the Virginia Resolution (1798), authored by Thomas Jefferson, to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). Well, it's important to remember that the nation was still young and much different than what we think of today. Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. . 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. Senator Foote, of Connecticut, submitted a proposition inquiring into the expediency of limiting the sales of public lands to those already in the market. An error occurred trying to load this video. . The arena selected for a first impression was the Senate, where the arch-heretic himself presided and guided the onset with his eye. 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. - Definition and Uses, Public Speaking: Assignment 1 - Informative Speech, Public Speaking: Assignment 3 - Special Occasion Speech, The Role of Probability Distributions, Random Numbers & the Computer in Simulations, The Monte Carlo Simulation: Scope & Common Applications, Working Scholars Bringing Tuition-Free College to the Community, The methods by which the federal government earned its revenue, The federal government's surveying and selling of land west of the Mississippi River, The issue of slavery, which was beginning to divide the Northern and Southern states, The balance of power between federal and state governments. In January 1830, a debate on the nature of sovereignty in the American federal union occurred in the United States Senate between Senators Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina. I deem far otherwise of the Union of the states; and so did the Framers of the Constitution themselves. The debaters were Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. The Union to be preserved, while it suits local and temporary purposes to preserve it; and to be sundered whenever it shall be found to thwart such purposes. When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. In The Webster-Hayne Debate, Christopher Childers examines the context of the debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and his Senate colleague Robert S. Hayne of South Carolina in January 1830 . In 1830, the federal government collected few taxes and had two primary sources of revenue. It is the common pretense. At the time of the debate, Webster was serving his term as Senator of Massachusetts. Congress could only recommendtheir acts were not of binding force, till the states had adopted and sanctioned them. But, sir, we will pass over all this. . 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. . Hayne launched his confident javelin at the New England States. 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. 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. Webster-Hayne Debate. Finally, sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the states will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the Constitution. . 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. Sir, an immense national treasury would be a fund for corruption. Enrolling in a course lets you earn progress by passing quizzes and exams. As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 88,000 The Significance of the Frontier in American Histo South Carolinas Ordinance of Nullification. Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Breckinridge Facti (Southern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . . . Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado. . But his calm, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. In fact, Webster's definition of the Constitution as for the People, by the People, and answerable to the People would go on to form one of the most enduring ideas about American democracy. I know that there are some persons in the part of the country from which the honorable member comes, who habitually speak of the Union in terms of indifference, or even of disparagement. The Webster-Hayne Debate between New Hampshire Senator Daniel Webster and South Carolina Senator Robert Young Hayne highlighted the sectional nature of the controversy. . . That's what was happening out West. . Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural So "The Whole Affair Seems the Work of a Madman", John Brown and the Principle of Nonresistance. And here it will be necessary to go back to the origin of the federal government. Inflamed and mortified at this repulse, Hayne soon returned to the assault, primed with a two-day speech, which at great length vaunted the patriotism of South Carolina and bitterly attacked New England, dwelling particularly upon her conduct during the late war. . The militia of the state will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. . . Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 27, 1830. . Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as hardly a good. I shrink almost instinctively from a course, however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feelings, and sectional jealousies. . . It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. Sir, the very chief end, the main design, for which the whole Constitution was framed and adopted, was to establish a government that should not be obliged to act through state agency, or depend on state opinion and state discretion. This will co-operate with the feelings of patriotism to induce a state to avoid any measures calculated to endanger that connection. What can I say? Do they mean, or can they mean, anything more than that the Union of the states will be strengthened, by whatever continues or furnishes inducements to the people of the states to hold together? What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? What interest, asks he, has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio? Sir, this very question is full of significance. flashcard sets. . copyright 2003-2023 Study.com. It is one from which we are not disposed to shrink, in whatever form or under whatever circumstances it may be pressed upon us. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll hopefully stay awake until the end of the lesson. . It is the servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different wills and different purposes, and yet bound to obey all. Let us look at the historical facts. . Webster believed that the Constitution should be viewed as a binding document between the United States rather than an agreement between sovereign states. . In January 1830, a debate on the nature of sovereignty in the America. 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. If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have war. The Hayne-Webster Debate was an unplanned series of speeches in the Senate, during which Robert Hayne of South Carolina interpreted the Constitution as little more than a treaty between sovereign states, and Daniel Webster expressed the concept of the United States as one nation. Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. 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 . . Foote Idea To Limit The Sale Of Public Lands In The West To New Settlers. New England, the Union, and the Constitution in its integrity, all were triumphantly vindicated. Broadside Advertisement for Runaway Slave, Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a Free-Soiler, Free & Slave-holding States and Territories. 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. 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. There was an end to all apprehension. The Webster-Hayne debate laid out key issues faced by the Senate in the 1820s and 1830s. These verses recount the first occurrence of slavery. But, according to the gentlemans reading, the object of the Constitution was to consolidate the government, and the means would seem to be, the promotion of injustice, causing domestic discord, and depriving the states and the people of the blessings of liberty forever. But still, throughout American history, several debates have captured the nation's attention in a way that would make even Hollywood jealous. Those who are in favor of consolidation; who are constantly stealing power from the states and adding strength to the federal government; who, assuming an unwarrantable jurisdiction over the states and the people, undertake to regulate the whole industry and capital of the country. [Its leader] would have a knot before him, which he could not untie. And what has been the consequence? . The measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. It is only by a strict adherence to the limitations imposed by the Constitution on the federal government, that this system works well, and can answer the great ends for which it was instituted. It is worth noting that in the course of the debate, on the very floor of the Senate, both Hayne and Webster raised the specter of civil war 30 years before it commenced. What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion. It was a great and salutary measure of prevention. [2] We deal in no abstractions. . 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? . . But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the states. By establishing justice, promoting domestic tranquility, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. This is the true reading of the Constitution. 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. I maintain that, from the day of the cession of the territories by the states to Congress, no portion of the country has acted, either with more liberality or more intelligence, on the subject of the Western lands in the new states, than New England. 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. In many respects, his speech betrays the mentality of Massachusetts conservatives seeking to regain national leadership and advance their particular ideas about the nation. 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. Webster-Hayne Debate 1830, an unplanned series of speeches in the Senate, during which Robert Hayne of South Carolina interpreted the Constitution as little more than a treaty between sovereign states, and Daniel Webster expressed the concept of the United States as one nation. Webster was eloquent, he was educated, he was witty, and he was a staunch defender of American liberty. All regulated governments, all free governments, have been broken up by similar disinterested and well-disposed interference! Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. Webster pursued his objective through a rhetorical strategy that ignored Benton, the principal opponent of New England sectionalism, and that provoked Hayne into an exposition and defense of what became the South Carolina doctrine of nullification. They will not destroy it, they will not impair itthey will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! . . 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. This means that South Carolina is essentially its own nation, Georgia is its own nation, and so on. On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than in Mexico. . . It was a speech delivered before a crowded auditory, and loud were the Southern exultations that he was more than a match for Webster. There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of the South. Webster's "Second Reply to Hayne" was generally regarded as "the most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress."[1]. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. State governments were in control of their own affairs and expected little intervention from the federal government. But I do not admit that, under the Constitution, and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a state government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever. 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. 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? Are we in that condition still? Sheidley, Harlow W. "The Wester-Hayne Debate: Recasting New England's Sectionalism", Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 179899, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WebsterHayne_debate&oldid=1135315190, This page was last edited on 23 January 2023, at 22:54. Their own power over their own instrument remains. In all the efforts that have been made by South Carolina to resist the unconstitutional laws which Congress has extended over them, she has kept steadily in view the preservation of the Union, by the only means by which she believes it can be long preserveda firm, manly, and steady resistance against usurpation. If an inquiry should ever be instituted in these matters, however, it will be found that the profits of the slave trade were not confined to the South. Our notion of things is entirely different. Sir, I should fear the rebuke of no intelligent gentleman of Kentucky, were I to ask whether, if such an ordinance could have been applied to his own state, while it yet was a wilderness, and before Boone had passed the gap of the Alleghany, he does not suppose it would have contributed to the ultimate greatness of that commonwealth? These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened . But the topic which became the leading feature of the whole debate and gave it an undying interest was that of nullification, in which Hayne and Webster came forth as chief antagonists. For one, Hayne and Webster were arguing for the fate of the West and, in particular, whether the North or South would control western development. . She has a BA in political science. They tell us, in the letter submitting the Constitution to the consideration of the country, that, in all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true Americanthe consolidation of our Unionin which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety; perhaps our national existence. The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States H What Are the Colored People Doing for Themselves? But to remove all doubt it is expressly declared, by the 10th article of the amendment of the Constitution, that the powers not delegated to the states, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.. . Some of Webster's personal friends had felt nervous over what appeared to them too hasty a period for preparation. 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. Sir, I have had some opportunities of making comparisons between the condition of the free Negroes of the North and the slaves of the South, and the comparison has left not only an indelible impression of the superior advantages of the latter, but has gone far to reconcile me to slavery itself. . Hayne argued that the sovereign and independent states had created the Union to promote their particular interests. 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. . . . These irreconcilable views of national supremacy and state sovereignty framed the constitutional struggle that led to Civil War thirty years later. All of these ideas, however, are only parts of the main point. It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. . To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. If slavery, as it now exists in this country, be an evil, we of the present day found it ready made to our hands. They had burst forth from arguments about a decision by Connecticut Senator Samuel Foote. . . 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. 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. Rachel Venter is a recent graduate of Metropolitan State University of Denver. . Crittenden Compromise Plan & Reception | What was the Crittenden Compromise? Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. Certainly, sir, I am, and ever have been of that opinion. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you 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. 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. 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.) We found that we had to deal with a people whose physical, moral, and intellectual habits and character, totally disqualified them from the enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. . Explore the Webster-Hayne debate. . . Whose agent is it? Northern states intended to strengthen the federal government, binding the states in the union under one supreme law, and eradicating the use of slave labor in the rapidly growing nation. . . MTEL Speech: Notable Debates & Speeches in U.S. History, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858: Summary & Significance, Psychological Research & Experimental Design, All Teacher Certification Test Prep Courses, The Significance of Daniel Webster's Argument, MTEL Speech: Principles of Argument & Debate, MTEL Speech: Understanding Persuasive Communication, MTEL Speech: Public Argument in Democratic Societies. . Those who would confine the federal government strictly within the limits prescribed by the Constitutionwho would preserve to the states and the people all powers not expressly delegatedwho would make this a federal and not a national Unionand who, administering the government in a spirit of equal justice, would make it a blessing and not a curse. At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . . And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentlemans doctrine a little into its practical application. 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 honorable member himself is not, I trust, and can never be, one of these. But the gentleman apprehends that this will make the Union a rope of sand. Sir, I have shown that it is a power indispensably necessary to the preservation of the constitutional rights of the states, and of the people. . Correct answers: 2 question: Which of the following is the best definition of a hypothesis? Hayne and the South saw it as basically a treaty between sovereign states. In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. 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. . God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. Thousands of these deluded victims of fanaticism were seduced into the enjoyment of freedom in our Northern cities. God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise. . Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. Between January and May 1830, twenty-one of the forty-eight senators delivered a staggering sixty-five speeches on the nature of the Union. This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. I understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina to maintain, that it is a right of the state legislatures to interfere, whenever, in their judgment, this government transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of its laws. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. I know, full well, that it is, and has been, the settled policy of some persons in the South, for years, to represent the people of the North as disposed to interfere with them, in their own exclusive and peculiar concerns. Famous Speeches by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. MTEL Speech: Ethical & Legal Communications, MTEL Speech: Delivering Effective Speeches, MTEL Speech: Using Communication Aids for Speeches, NY Regents Exam - US History and Government: Tutoring Solution, Business 104: Information Systems and Computer Applications, GED Math: Quantitative, Arithmetic & Algebraic Problem Solving, GED Social Studies: Civics & Government, US History, Economics, Geography & World, CSET Foundational-Level General Science (215) Prep, CSET English Subtests I & III (105 & 107): Practice & Study Guide, Managing Risk to Enhance & Maintain Your Health, Types of Healthcare Professionals & Delivery Systems, Consumer Health: Laws, Regulations & Agencies, The Role of School Health Advisory Councils in Texas, Teaching Sensitive or Controversial Health Issues, Calculating the Square Root of 27: How-To & Steps, Linear Transformations: Properties & Examples, Chemical Safety: Preparation, Use, Storage, and Disposal, Spectrophotometers: Definition, Uses, and Parts, What is an Autoclave?
Company Code Region Table In Sap,
Museum Of Aviation Auction,
Richard Corrigan Net Worth,
Articles W