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. We, sir, who oppose the Carolina doctrine, do not deny that the people may, if they choose, throw off any government, when it becomes oppressive and intolerable, and erect a better in its stead. 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. Eloquence threw open the portals of eternal day. She has a BA in political science. . Webster-Hayne Debates, 1830 - Bill of Rights Institute I understand the gentleman to maintain, that, without revolution, without civil commotion, without rebellion, a remedy for supposed abuse and transgression of the powers of the general government lies in a direct appeal to the interference of the state governments. Debate on the Constitutionality of the Mexican War, Letters and Journals from the Oregon Trail. In the course of my former remarks, I took occasion to deprecate, as one of the greatest of evils, the consolidation of this government. 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. 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. He rose, the image of conscious mastery, after the dull preliminary business of the day was dispatched, and with a happy figurative allusion to the tossed mariner, as he called for a reading of the resolution from which the debate had so far drifted, lifted his audience at once to his level. . I hold it to be a popular government, erected by the people; those who administer it responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be. 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 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. 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. Winners and Losers History's Famous Debates - Medium Nor shall I stop there. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the states, as states, were parties to it. Let their last feeble and lingering glance, rather behold the gorgeous Ensign of the Republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original luster, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscuredbearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as, what is all this worth? How do Webster and Hayne differ in regard to their understandings of the proper relationship among the several states and between the states and the national government? Sir, when arraigned before the bar of public opinion, on this charge of slavery, we can stand up with conscious rectitude, plead not guilty, and put ourselves upon God and our country. webster hayne debate Flashcards | Quizlet Webster believed that the Constitution should be viewed as a binding document between the United States rather than an agreement between sovereign states. . By means of missionaries and political tracts, the scheme was in a great measure successful. Rather, the debate eloquently captured the ideas and ideals of Northern and Southern representatives of the time, highlighting and summarizing the major issues of governance of the era. Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason thus. Consolidation!that perpetual cry, both of terror and delusionconsolidation! But, sir, we will pass over all this. 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.. This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. . When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the states, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. . Address to the Slaves of the United States. The Webster-Hayne Debate: An Inquiry into the Nature of Union by Stefan Would it be safe to confide such a treasure to the keeping of our national rulers? 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. Andrew Jackson & the Nullification Crisis | The Hermitage I'm imagining that your answer is probably 'I do.' The debate was on. What a commentary on the wisdom, justice, and humanity, of the Southern slave owner is presented by the example of certain benevolent associations and charitable individuals elsewhere. I now proceed to show that it is perfectly safe, and will practically have no effect but to keep the federal government within the limits of the Constitution, and prevent those unwarrantable assumptions of power, which cannot fail to impair the rights of the states, and finally destroy the Union itself. Now, have they given away that right, or agreed to limit or restrict it in any respect? These verses recount the first occurrence of slavery. I will struggle while I have life, for our altars and our fire sides, and if God gives me strength, I will drive back the invader discomfited. . It was a speech delivered before a crowded auditory, and loud were the Southern exultations that he was more than a match for Webster. Help please? What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? The Tariff of 1816 History & Significance | What was the Tariff of 1816? 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. Congress could only recommendtheir acts were not of binding force, till the states had adopted and sanctioned them. I spoke, sir, of the ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery, in all future times, northwest of the Ohio,[6] as a measure of great wisdom and foresight; and one which had been attended with highly beneficial and permanent consequences. . This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government, and the source of its power. 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? It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. TEST: THE WESTWARD MOVEMENT Flashcards | Quizlet 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. In January 1830, a debate on the nature of sovereignty in the America. Neither side can be said to have 'won' the debate, but Webster's articulation of the Union solidified for many the role of the federal government. 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. 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]. . Van Buren responded to the Panic of 1837 with the idea of the independent treasury, which was a. a system of depositing money in select independent banks Webster's Reply to Hayne - National Park Service So they could finish selling the lands already surveyed. . For Calhoun, see the Speech on Abolition Petitions and the Speech on the Oregon Bill. They ordained such a government; they gave it the name of a Constitution, and therein they established a distribution of powers between this, their general government, and their several state governments. 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. South Carolina nullification was now coming in sight, and a celebrated debate that belongs to the first session exposed its claims and its fallacies to the country. . 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. . . So soon as the cessions were obtained, it became necessary to make provision for the government and disposition of the territory . Thirty years before the Civil War broke out, disunion appeared to be on the horizon with the Nullification Crisis. Most are forgettable, to put it charitably. Will it promote the welfare of the United States to have at our disposal a permanent treasury, not drawn from the pockets of the people, but to be derived from a source independent of them? Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you It is one from which we are not disposed to shrink, in whatever form or under whatever circumstances it may be pressed upon us. But, the simple expression of this sentiment has led the gentleman, not only into a labored defense of slavery, in the abstract, and on principle, but, also, into a warm accusation against me, as having attacked the system of domestic slavery, now existing in the Southern states. The WebsterHayne debate was a debate in the United States between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina that took place on January 1927, 1830 on the topic of protectionist tariffs. [2] We deal in no abstractions. The Webster-Hayne debate laid out key issues faced by the Senate in the 1820s and 1830s. They attack nobody, and menace nobody. Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. 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. Representatives of the northern states were concerned by the rapid growth of the nation; just 27 years earlier, the Louisiana Purchase had nearly doubled the size of the nation, and the newly elected President Andrew Jackson was hungry for more territory. These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened . Which of the following is the best definition of a hypothesis? I propose to consider it, and to compare it with the Constitution. Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. . . Lincoln-Douglas Debates History & Significance | What Was the Lincoln-Douglas Debate? 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. Record of the Organization and Proceedings of The Massachusetts Lawmakers Investigate Working Condit State (Colonial) Legislatures>Massachusetts State Legislature. He was dressed with scrupulous care, in a blue coat with metal buttons, a buff vest rounding over his full abdomen, and his neck encircled with a white cravat. . Sir, I will not stop at the border; I will carry the war into the enemys territory, and not consent to lay down my arms, until I shall have obtained indemnity for the past, and security for the future.[4] It is with unfeigned reluctance that I enter upon the performance of this part of my duty. . Rachel Venter is a recent graduate of Metropolitan State University of Denver. . . The other way was through the sale of federally-owned land to private citizens. This statement, though strong, is no stronger than the strictest truth will warrant. . 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. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. The answer is Daniel Webster, one of the greatest orators in US Senate history, a successful attorney and Senator from Massachusetts and a complex and enigmatic man. Hayne, Robert Young | South Carolina Encyclopedia Webster rose the next day in his seat to make his reply. The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States H What Are the Colored People Doing for Themselves? . Noah grew a vineyard, got drunk on wine and lay naked. This, sir, is General Washingtons consolidation. The impression which has gone abroad, of the weakness of the South, as connected with the slave question, exposes us to such constant attacks, has done us so much injury, and is calculated to produce such infinite mischiefs, that I embrace the occasion presented by the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts, to declare that we are ready to meet the question promptly and fearlessly. The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. . . An error occurred trying to load this video. | 12 The scene depicted in the painting is Webster concluding his debate with Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. What followed, the Webster Hayne debate, was one of the most famous exchanges in Senate history. We look upon the states, not as separated, but as united. This is the sum of what I understand from him, to be the South Carolina doctrine; and the doctrine which he maintains. . It is only regarded as a possible means of good; or on the other hand, as a possible means of evil. 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. Connecticut and other northeastern states were worried about the pace of growth and wanted to slow this down. In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. President Andrew Jackson had just been elected, most of the states got rid of property requirements for voting, and an entire new era of democracy was being born. Sir, we will not stop to inquire whether the black man, as some philosophers have contended, is of an inferior race, nor whether his color and condition are the effects of a curse inflicted for the offences of his ancestors. 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? Daniel webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the. 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. The Most Famous Senate Speech January 26, 1830 The debate began simply enough, centering on the seemingly prosaic subjects of tariff and public land policy. Several state governments or courts, some in the north, had espoused the idea of nullification prior to 1828. 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. 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. The specific issue that sparked the Webster-Hayne debate was a proposal by the state of Connecticut which said that the federal government should halt its surveying of land west of the Mississippi and focus on selling the land it had already surveyed to private citizens. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches delivered before the Senate in 1830. 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. . . He describes fully that old state of things then existing. The United States, under the Constitution and federal government, was a single, unified nation, not a coalition of sovereign states. On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than in Mexico. State governments were in control of their own affairs and expected little intervention from the federal government. We who come here, as agents and representatives of these narrow-minded and selfish men of New England, consider ourselves as bound to regard, with equal eye, the good of the whole, in whatever is within our power of legislation. We see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow. 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. I understand him to maintain, that the ultimate power of judging of the constitutional extent of its own authority, is not lodged exclusively in the general government, or any branch of it; but that, on the contrary, the states may lawfully decide for themselves, and each state for itself, whether, in a given case, the act of the general government transcends its power. Mr. Webster arose, and, in conclusion, said: A few words, Mr. President, on this constitutional argument, which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstruct. . Sir, when the gentleman provokes me to such a conflict, I meet him at the threshold. . The Webster-Hayne Debate | Overview, Issues & Significance - Study 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. See what I mean? What interest, asks he, has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio? Sir, this very question is full of significance. But his reply was gathered from the choicest arguments and the most decadent thoughts that had long floated through his brain while this crisis was gathering; and bringing these materials together in a lucid and compact shape, he calmly composed and delivered before another crowded and breathless auditory a speech full of burning passages, which will live as long as the American Union, and the grandest effort of his life. Expert Answers. The Webster Hayne Debate - DEBETE CJK 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. . . Explore the Webster-Hayne debate. But his standpoint was purely local and sectional. . . God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise. 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. Compare And Contrast The Tension Between North And South . I will yield to no gentleman here in sincere attachment to the Union,but it is a Union founded on the Constitution, and not such a Union as that gentleman would give us, that is dear to my heart. 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. 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. To them, this was a scheme to give the federal government more control over the cost of land by creating a scarcity. . They had burst forth from arguments about a decision by Connecticut Senator Samuel Foote. Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the constitutional question. All of these contentious topics were touched upon in Webster and Hayne's nine day long debate. Sir, an immense national treasury would be a fund for corruption. The Webster-Hayne Debate: Defining Nationhood in the Early American . Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person. . This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself.
Churchill Shotgun Accessories,
List Of Sundown Towns In New England,
Error: Trying To Remove "systemd", Which Is Protected,
Articles W
