what idea was espoused with the webster hayne debates

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. Edited and introduced by Jason W. Stevens. 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. 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. 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. 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. . Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Breckinridge Facti (Southern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. I am opposed, therefore, in any shape, to all unnecessary extension of the powers, or the influence of the Legislature or Executive of the Union over the states, or the people of the states; and, most of all, I am opposed to those partial distributions of favors, whether by legislation or appropriation, which has a direct and powerful tendency to spread corruption through the land; to create an abject spirit of dependence; to sow the seeds of dissolution; to produce jealousy among the different portions of the Union, and finally to sap the very foundations of the government itself. . . 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. . Now that was a good debate! He must cut it with his sword. Battle of Fort Sumter in the Civil War | Who Won the Battle of Fort Sumter? 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. But still, throughout American history, several debates have captured the nation's attention in a way that would make even Hollywood jealous. [Its leader] would have a knot before him, which he could not untie. . Speech on Assuming Office of the President. 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. Get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons. 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." . 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. foote wanted to stop surveying lands until they could sell the ones already looked at For all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in anything said or intimated by me. Ham, one of Noahs sons, saw him uncovered, for which Noah cursed him by making Hams son, Canaan, a slave to Ham's brothers. . . Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. 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. The United States, under the Constitution and federal government, was a single, unified nation, not a coalition of sovereign states. All of these ideas, however, are only parts of the main point. This is the sum of what I understand from him, to be the South Carolina doctrine; and the doctrine which he maintains. 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. She has a BA in political science. . I feel like its a lifeline. Winners and Losers History's Famous Debates - Medium Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person. Robert Young Hayne | American politician | Britannica 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. God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise. But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the states. Hayne's few but zealous partizans shielded him still, and South Carolina spoke with pride of him. In this moment in American history, the federal government had relatively little power. I love a good debate. They will also better understand the debate's political context. . 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. Tariff of Abominations of 1828 | What was the Significance of the Tariff of Abominations? . Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . . Webster-Hayne Debate by Stefan M. Brooks 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. . But I take leave of the subject. Having thus distinctly stated the points in dispute between the gentleman and myself, I proceed to examine them. 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. Webster-Hayne Debate. 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. Webster believed that the Constitution should be viewed as a binding document between the United States rather than an agreement between sovereign states. The Webster-Hayne debates began over one issue but quickly switched to another. Sir, I cordially respond to that appeal. It has been said that Hayne was Calhoun's sword and buckler and that he returned to the contest refreshed each morning by nightly communions with the Vice-President, drawing auxiliary supplies from the well-stored arsenal of his powerful and subtle mind. 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. South Carolinas Declaration of the Causes of Secession (1860), Jefferson Daviss Inaugural Address (1861), Documents in Detail: The Webster-Hayne Debates, Remarks in Congress on the Tariff of Abominations, Check out our collection of primary source readers. . So soon as the cessions were obtained, it became necessary to make provision for the government and disposition of the territory . Under that system, the legal actionthe application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. Webster-Hayne Debate | Encyclopedia.com She has worked as a university writing consultant for over three years. Who, then, Mr. President, are the true friends of the Union? Judiciary Act of 1801 | Overview, History & Significance, General Ulysses S. Grant Takes Charge: His Strategic Plan for Ending the War. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches presented to the United States Senate by senators Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. The Webster Hayne Debate. . The object of the Framers of the Constitution, as disclosed in that address, was not the consolidation of the government, but the consolidation of the Union. It was not to draw power from the states, in order to transfer it to a great national government, but, in the language of the Constitution itself, to form a more perfect union; and by what means? All rights reserved. Ostend Manifesto of 1854 Overview & Purpose | What was the Ostend Manifesto? ", What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?. 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. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. That's what was happening out West. . But his standpoint was purely local and sectional. Visit the dark and narrow lanes, and obscure recesses, which have been assigned by common consent as the abodes of those outcasts of the worldthe free people of color. Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. It was not a Union to be torn up without bloodshed; for nerves and arteries were interwoven with its roots and tendrils, sustaining the lives and interests of twelve million inhabitants. Rachel Venter is a recent graduate of Metropolitan State University of Denver. . . Webster replied to his speech the next day and left not a shred of the charge, baseless as it was. . . . The tendency of all these ideas and sentiments is obviously to bring the Union into discussion, as a mere question of present and temporary expediency; nothing more than a mere matter of profit and loss. . . 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. . Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural So "The Whole Affair Seems the Work of a Madman", John Brown and the Principle of Nonresistance. Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as hardly a good. States' rights (South) vs. nationalism (North). U.S. Senate: The Most Famous Senate Speech 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. 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. 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. In this regard, Webster anticipated an argument that Abraham Lincoln made in his First Inaugural Address (1861). But it was the honor of a caste; and the struggling bread-winners of society, the great commonalty, he little studied or understood. The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. 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.) In the course of my former remarks, I took occasion to deprecate, as one of the greatest of evils, the consolidation of this government. A four-speech debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina, in January 1830. 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. Next, the Union was held up to view in all its strength, symmetry, and integrity, reposing in the ark of the Constitution, no longer an experiment, as in the days when Hamilton and Jefferson contended for shaping its course, but ordained and established by and for the people, to secure the blessings of liberty to all posterity. The whole form and structure of the federal government, the opinions of the Framers of the Constitution, and the organization of the state governments, demonstrate that though the states have surrendered certain specific powers, they have not surrendered their sovereignty. He had allowed himself but a single night from eve to morn to prepare for a critical and crowning occasion. And, therefore, I cannot but feel regret at the expression of such opinions as the gentleman has avowed; because I think their obvious tendency is to weaken the bond of our connection. The Northwest Ordinance. 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. This statement, though strong, is no stronger than the strictest truth will warrant. But I do not understand the doctrine now contended for to be that which, for the sake of distinctness, we may call the right of revolution. So what was this debate really about? TeachingAmericanHistory.org is a project of the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University, 401 College Avenue, Ashland, Ohio 44805 PHONE (419) 289-5411 TOLL FREE (877) 289-5411 EMAIL [emailprotected], The Congress Sends Twelve Amendments to the States, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 3rd Debate Part I, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 3rd Debate Part II, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 4th Debate Part I, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 4th Debate Part II, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 6th Debate Part I, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 6th Debate Part II, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 7th Debate Part I, National Disfranchisement of Colored People, William Lloyd Garrison to Thomas Shipley. There was an end to all apprehension. The speech is also known for the line Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable, which would subsequently become the state motto of North Dakota, appearing on the state seal. . . Sir, there does not exist, on the face of the whole earth, a population so poor, so wretched, so vile, so loathsome, so utterly destitute of all the comforts, conveniences, and decencies of life, as the unfortunate blacks of Philadelphia, and New York, and Boston. 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. What can I say? If I could, by a mere act of my will, put at the disposal of the federal government any amount of treasure which I might think proper to name, I should limit the amount to the means necessary for the legitimate purposes of the government. . 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. And what has been the consequence? This seemed like an Eastern spasm of jealousy at the progress of the West. Correspondence Between Anthony Butler and Presiden State of the Union Address Part II (1846). Strange was it, however, that in heaping reproaches upon the Hartford Convention he did not mark how nearly its leaders had mapped out the same line of opposition to the national Government that his State now proposed to take, both relying upon the arguments of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 179899. Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. He entered the Senate on that memorable day with a slow and stately step and took his seat as though unconscious of the loud buzz of expectant interest with which the crowded auditory greeted his appearance. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you My life upon it, sir, they would not. 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 . Help please? What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? The . . The states cannot now make war; they cannot contract alliances; they cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin money. . . Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. Sir, an immense national treasury would be a fund for corruption. State governments were in control of their own affairs and expected little intervention from the federal government. 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. . . Then he began his speech, his words flowing on so completely at command that a fellow senator who heard him likened his elocution to the steady flow of molten gold. This episode was used in nineteenth century America as a Biblical justification for 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. . Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? . 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. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. 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]. . But the feeling is without all adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists wholly groundless. 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. 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. It was motivated by a dispute over the continued sale of western lands, an important source of revenue for the federal government. . Address to the Slaves of the United States. The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . But, sir, we will pass over all this. It would be equally fatal to the sovereignty and independence of the states. It was a speech delivered before a crowded auditory, and loud were the Southern exultations that he was more than a match for Webster. 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. . "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.. . 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. What was the main issue of the Webster-Hayne debate? This is the true constitutional consolidation. Webster-Hayne debate - Wikipedia Hayne, Robert Young | South Carolina Encyclopedia 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 the gentleman provokes me to such a conflict, I meet him at the threshold. In many respects, his speech betrays the mentality of Massachusetts conservatives seeking to regain national leadership and advance their particular ideas about the nation. The faction of voters in the North were against slavery and feared it spreading into new territory. 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. . Gloomy and downcast of late, Massachusetts men walked the avenue as though the fife and drum were before them. 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 people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. An error occurred trying to load this video. Benton was rising in renown as the advocate not only of Western settlers but of a new theory that the public lands should be given away instead of sold to them. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. What was going on? A speech by Louisiana Senator Edward Livingston, however, neatly explains how American nationhood encompasses elements of both Webster and Hayne's ideas. Andrew Jackson & the Nullification Crisis | The Hermitage This debate exposed the critically different understandings of the nature of the American. Sir, I may be singularperhaps I stand alone here in the opinion, but it is one I have long entertained, that one of the greatest safeguards of liberty is a jealous watchfulness on the part of the people, over the collection and expenditure of the public moneya watchfulness that can only be secured where the money is drawn by taxation directly from the pockets of the people. But, sir, the task has been forced upon me, and I proceed right onward to the performance of my duty; be the consequences what they may, the responsibility is with those who have imposed upon me this necessity. 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. Religion and the Pure Principles of Morality: The American Anti-Slavery Society, Declaration of Sent Constitution of the American Anti-Slavery Society, Appeal to the Christian Women of the South, Protest in Illinois Legislature on Slavery. Drama, suspense, it's all there. The main issue of the Webster-Hayne Debate was the nature of the country that had been created by the Constitution. For Calhoun, see the Speech on Abolition Petitions and the Speech on the Oregon Bill. Webster-Hayne Debate - U-S-History It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. . 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. 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. Sir, it is because South Carolina loves the Union, and would preserve it forever, that she is opposing now, while there is hope, those usurpations of the federal government, which, once established, will, sooner or later, tear this Union into fragments. 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.Readers will finish the book with a clear idea of the reason Webster's "Reply" became so influential in its own day. The Revelation on Celestial Marriage: Trouble Amon Hon. He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. Well, let's look at the various parts. 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.. Every scheme or contrivance by which rulers are able to procure the command of money by means unknown to, unseen or unfelt by, the people, destroys this security. Let's start by looking at the United States around 1830. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the states, as states, were parties to it. By means of missionaries and political tracts, the scheme was in a great measure successful. . He must say to his followers [members of the state militia], defend yourselves with your bayonets; and this is warcivil war. At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . Crittenden Compromise Plan & Reception | What was the Crittenden Compromise? It is observable enough, that the doctrine for which the honorable gentleman contends, leads him to the necessity of maintaining, not only that this general government is the creature of the states, but that it is the creature of each of the states severally; so that each may assert the power, for itself, of determining whether it acts within the limits of its authority. 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.

Justin Torres Heritage, Data Lineage Vs Data Mapping, Is Sheryl Gascoigne Married, 1985 Newell Coach For Sale, Speedway Riders Killed In Action, Articles W