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. . 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. 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. 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. 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. It was of a partizan and censorious character and drew nearly all the chief senators out. At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. . In the course of my former remarks, I took occasion to deprecate, as one of the greatest of evils, the consolidation of this government. 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. . Let's start by looking at the United States around 1830. . The Webster Hayne Debate. Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as hardly a good. . . The next day, however, Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster rose with his reply, and the northern states knew they had found their champion. 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. Sir, I cordially respond to that appeal. 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. Regional Conflict in America: Debate Over States' Rights. . On this subject, as in all others, we ask nothing of our Northern brethren but to let us alone; leave us to the undisturbed management of our domestic concerns, and the direction of our own industry, and we will ask no more. . Differences between Northern and Southern ideas of good governance, which eventually led to the American Civil War, were beginning to emerge. . ", What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?. 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. When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification 1832 | Crisis, Cause & Issues. 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. 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. Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. Sir, I deprecate and deplore this tone of thinking and acting. . Webster spoke in favor of the proposed pause of federal surveyance of western land, representing the North's interest in selling the western land, which had already been surveyed. Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 20, 1830. This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government, and the source of its power. What interest, asks he, has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio? Sir, this very question is full of significance. The theory that the states' may vote against unfair laws. Now that was a good debate! . . 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. 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. 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. A speech by Louisiana Senator Edward Livingston, however, neatly explains how American nationhood encompasses elements of both Webster and Hayne's ideas. . This was the tenor of Webster's speech, and nobly did the country respond to it. The scene depicted in the painting is Webster concluding his debate with Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. Historians love a good debate. They switched from a. the tariff of 1828 to national power . This, sir, is General Washingtons consolidation. 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? . 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. 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. We had no other general government. Most are forgettable, to put it charitably. They will also better understand the debate's political context. Foot calling for the temporary suspension of further land surveying until land already on the market was sold (to effectively stop the introduction of new lands onto the market). Debate on the Constitutionality of the Mexican War, Letters and Journals from the Oregon Trail. . He must cut it with his sword. It is the common pretense. Battle of Fort Sumter in the Civil War | Who Won the Battle of Fort Sumter? You see, to the south, the Constitution was essentially a treaty signed between sovereign states. Some of Webster's personal friends had felt nervous over what appeared to them too hasty a period for preparation. . 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? Webster believed that the Constitution should be viewed as a binding document between the United States rather than an agreement between sovereign states. . flashcard sets. Be this as it may, Hayne was a ready and copious orator, a highly-educated lawyer, a man of varied accomplishments, shining as a writer, speaker, and counselor, equally qualified to draw up a bill or to advocate it, quick to memories, well fortified by wealth and marriage connections, dignified, never vulgar nor unmindful of the feelings of those with whom he mingled, Hayne moved in an atmosphere where lofty and chivalrous honor was the ruling sentiment. Broadside Advertisement for Runaway Slave, Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a Free-Soiler, Free & Slave-holding States and Territories. Record of the Organization and Proceedings of The Massachusetts Lawmakers Investigate Working Condit State (Colonial) Legislatures>Massachusetts State Legislature. 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. All of these contentious topics were touched upon in Webster and Hayne's nine day long debate. New England, the Union, and the Constitution in its integrity, all were triumphantly vindicated. 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. The militia of the state will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. As a pious son of Federalism, Webster went the full length of the required defense. Webster's description of the U.S. government as "made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people," was later paraphrased by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address in the words "government of the people, by the people, for the people." 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. Webster's articulation of the concept of the Union went on to shape American attitudes about the federal government. . And here it will be necessary to go back to the origin of the federal government. This government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. Tariff of Abominations of 1828 | What was the Significance of the Tariff of Abominations? 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. 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. This will co-operate with the feelings of patriotism to induce a state to avoid any measures calculated to endanger that connection. . When my eyes shall be turned to behold, for the last time, the sun in Heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. Our Core Document Collection allows students to read history in the words of those who made it. The people had had quite enough of that kind of government, under the Confederacy. . . Finally, sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the states will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the Constitution. The debate, which took place between January 19th and January 27th, 1830, encapsulated the major issues facing the newly founded United States in the 1820s and 1830s; the balance of power between the federal and state governments, the development of the democratic process, and the growing tension between Northern and Southern states. 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. 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. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you . It is, sir, the peoples Constitution, the peoples government; made for the people; made by the people; and answerable to the people. Liberty has been to them the greatest of calamities, the heaviest of curses. . 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. . In this regard, Webster anticipated an argument that Abraham Lincoln made in his First Inaugural Address (1861). And who are its enemies? This is the true constitutional consolidation. The great debate, which culminated in Hayne's encounter with Webster, came about in a somewhat casual way. 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. If this is to become one great consolidated government, swallowing up the rights of the states, and the liberties of the citizen, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman, and beggared yeomanry,[8] the Union will not be worth preserving. . . An equally talented orator, Webster rose as the advocate of the North in the debate with his captivating reply to Hayne's initial argument. . . There yet remains to be performed, Mr. President, by far the most grave and important duty, which I feel to be devolved on me, by this occasion. Rush-Bagot Treaty Structure & Effects | What was the Rush-Bagot Agreement? The United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. . While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. As sovereign states, each state could individually interpret the Constitution and even leave the Union altogether. 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. . MTEL Speech: Public Discourse & Debate in the U.S. All of these ideas, however, are only parts of the main point. Sir, when the gentleman provokes me to such a conflict, I meet him at the threshold. . It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. . . Thirty years before the Civil War broke out, disunion appeared to be on the horizon with the Nullification Crisis. What followed, the Webster Hayne debate, was one of the most famous exchanges in Senate history. If they mean merely this, then, no doubt, the public lands as well as everything else in which we have a common interest, tends to consolidation; and to this species of consolidation every true American ought to be attached; it is neither more nor less than strengthening the Union itself. 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. 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. . 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. . 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. 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. If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have war. Robert Young Hayne, (born Nov. 10, 1791, Colleton District, S.C., U.S.died Sept. 24, 1839, Asheville, N.C.), American lawyer, political leader, and spokesman for the South, best-remembered for his debate with Daniel Webster (1830), in which he set forth a doctrine of nullification. 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. . Go to these cities now, and ask the question. The Destiny of America, Speech at the Dedication o An Address. 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. Gloomy and downcast of late, Massachusetts men walked the avenue as though the fife and drum were before them. 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.) 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. Correspondence Between Anthony Butler and Presiden State of the Union Address Part II (1846). 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. I'm imagining that your answer is probably 'I do.' Edited and introduced by Jason W. Stevens. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. The honorable member himself is not, I trust, and can never be, one of these. . . 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. I say, the right of a state to annul a law of Congress, cannot be maintained, but on the ground of the unalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. 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 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. The purpose of the Constitution was to permit cooperation between states under a shared political standard, but that meant that any growth in a federal government threatened the sovereignty of the states. The real significance of this debate was in each man's interpretation of the United States Constitution. . The gentleman has made an eloquent appeal to our hearts in favor of union. 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. In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. . 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? Understand the 1830 debate's significance through an overview of issues of the Constitution, the Union, and state sovereignty. 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 people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. 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.. Well, it's important to remember that the nation was still young and much different than what we think of today. 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. . Create your account, 15 chapters | For all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in anything said or intimated by me. . 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. I feel like its a lifeline. 1824 Presidential Election, Candidates & Significance | Who Won the Election of 1824? As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 88,000 . They will not destroy it, they will not impair itthey will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! These verses recount the first occurrence of slavery. Between January and May 1830, twenty-one of the forty-eight senators delivered a staggering sixty-five speeches on the nature of the Union. Crittenden Compromise Plan & Reception | What was the Crittenden Compromise? . . Whose agent is it? 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. 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. The growing support for nullification was quite obvious during the days of the Jackson Administration, as events such as the Webster-Hayne Debate, Tariff of 1832, Order of Nullification, and Worcester v. Georgia all made the tension grow between the North and the South. An equally. State governments were in control of their own affairs and expected little intervention from the federal government. 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. . Certainly, sir, I am, and ever have been of that opinion. Who doesn't? . . 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. 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. Southern ships and Southern sailors were not the instruments of bringing slaves to the shores of America, nor did our merchants reap the profits of that accursed traffic.. My life upon it, sir, they would not. 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. In coming to the consideration of the next great question, what ought to be the future policy of the government in relation to the public lands? 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. . Consolidation, like the tariff, grates upon his ear. 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. 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. 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. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. 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.
How Much Does Finametrica Cost,
Infp Careers In Medicine,
Difference Between R12 And R134a Expansion Valve,
Articles W