. Nullification Crisis | American Battlefield Trust 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. . They had burst forth from arguments about a decision by Connecticut Senator Samuel Foote. . Create your account. 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. sir, this is but the old story. So they could finish selling the lands already surveyed. 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. The heated speeches were unplanned and stemmed from the debate over a resolution by Connecticut Senator Samuel A. 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. . All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. Senator Foote, of Connecticut, submitted a proposition inquiring into the expediency of limiting the sales of public lands to those already in the market. Expert Answers. 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. Liberty has been to them the greatest of calamities, the heaviest of curses. Our Core Document Collection allows students to read history in the words of those who made it. 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. It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. The taxes paid by foreign nations to export American cotton, for example, generated lots of money for the government. Webster and the northern states saw the Constitution as binding the individual states together as a single union. Webster-Hayne Debate - Federalism in America - CSF She has a BA in political science. When, however, the gentleman proceeded to contrast the state of Ohio with Kentucky, to the disadvantage of the latter, I listened to him with regret. . 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. 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.. Hayne entered the U.S. Senate in 1823 and soon became prominent as a spokesman for the South and for the . . 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. . . I distrust, therefore, sir, the policy of creating a great permanent national treasury, whether to be derived from public lands or from any other source. 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. A speech by Louisiana Senator Edward Livingston, however, neatly explains how American nationhood encompasses elements of both Webster and Hayne's ideas. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches delivered before the Senate in 1830. I understand him to insist, that if the exigency of the case, in the opinion of any state government, require it, such state government may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the general government, which it deems plainly and palpably unconstitutional. . 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. 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? Finally, sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the states will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the Constitution. Correct answers: 2 question: Which of the following is the best definition of a hypothesis? A four-speech debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina, in January 1830. Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? It was of a partizan and censorious character and drew nearly all the chief senators out. . 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. 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? Webster-Hayne Debate | Encyclopedia.com When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the states, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. . The measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. . . They will not destroy it, they will not impair itthey will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! Sir, as to the doctrine that the federal government is the exclusive judge of the extent as well as the limitations of its powers, it seems to be utterly subversive of the sovereignty and independence of the states. That's what was happening out West. 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. Webster was eloquent, he was educated, he was witty, and he was a staunch defender of American liberty. 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. 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. Compare And Contrast The Tension Between North And South Sir, I deprecate and deplore this tone of thinking and acting. Record of the Organization and Proceedings of The Massachusetts Lawmakers Investigate Working Condit State (Colonial) Legislatures>Massachusetts State Legislature. Wilmot Proviso of 1846: Overview & Significance | What was the Wilmot Proviso? He had allowed himself but a single night from eve to morn to prepare for a critical and crowning occasion. The Revelation on Celestial Marriage: Trouble Amon Hon. Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. 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! At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . Even Benton, whose connection with the debate made him at first belittle these grand utterances, soon felt the danger and repudiated the company of the nullifiers. It is only regarded as a possible means of good; or on the other hand, as a possible means of evil. This will co-operate with the feelings of patriotism to induce a state to avoid any measures calculated to endanger that connection. . Winners and Losers History's Famous Debates - Medium 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. We see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow. 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. It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll hopefully stay awake until the end of the lesson. . . The debate was important because it laid out the arguments in favor of nationalism in the face of growing sectionalism. . We are ready to make up the issue with the gentleman, as to the influence of slavery on individual and national characteron the prosperity and greatness, either of the United States, or of particular states. 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. She has worked as a university writing consultant for over three years. It is the common pretense. 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. Web hardcover $30.00 paperback $17.00 kindle nook book ibook. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Senator Daniel Webster] has gone out of his way to pass a high eulogium on the state of Ohio. It is one from which we are not disposed to shrink, in whatever form or under whatever circumstances it may be pressed upon us. Who doesn't? Thousands of these deluded victims of fanaticism were seduced into the enjoyment of freedom in our Northern cities. Historians love a good debate. 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. . 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. Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural So "The Whole Affair Seems the Work of a Madman", John Brown and the Principle of Nonresistance. Let us look at the historical facts. This debate exposed the critically different understandings of the nature of the American. . The United States, under the Constitution and federal government, was a single, unified nation, not a coalition of sovereign states. 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. 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. Even more pointedly, his speech reflected a decade of arguments from other Massachusetts conservatives who argued against supposed threats to New England's social order.[2]. Webster-Hayne Debate - U-S-History 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? The significance of Daniel Webster's argument went far beyond the immediate proposal at hand. . . The gentleman has made an eloquent appeal to our hearts in favor of union. . . 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. The United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. It would be equally fatal to the sovereignty and independence of the states. I regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest of evils, both moral and political. 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. 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. 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.. President John Quincy Adams and the Election of 1824. Pet Banks History & Effects | What are Pet Banks? Who, then, Mr. President, are the true friends of the Union? Webster's Reply to Hayne - National Park Service .Readers will finish the book with a clear idea of the reason Webster's "Reply" became so influential in its own day. . The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. . Most are forgettable, to put it charitably. 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. It is, sir, the peoples Constitution, the peoples government; made for the people; made by the people; and answerable to the people. But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. The honorable member himself is not, I trust, and can never be, one of these. The other way was through the sale of federally-owned land to private citizens. The Webster-Hayne debate laid out key issues faced by the Senate in the 1820s and 1830s. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of unplanned speeches in the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830 between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. 136 lessons 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. 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.) . 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. 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. 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. Help please? What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? The God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. Sir, when the gentleman provokes me to such a conflict, I meet him at the threshold. | 12 Crittenden Compromise Plan & Reception | What was the Crittenden Compromise? So what was this debate really about? Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 25, 1830. . If slavery, as it now exists in this country, be an evil, we of the present day found it ready made to our hands. The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . But, sir, the gentleman is mistaken. To them, this was a scheme to give the federal government more control over the cost of land by creating a scarcity. 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. . We love to dwell on that union, and on the mutual happiness which it has so much promoted, and the common renown which it has so greatly contributed to acquire. . Nor shall I stop there. Hayne and the South saw it as basically a treaty between sovereign states. In this moment in American history, the federal government had relatively little power. 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. I did not utter a single word, which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. 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. . 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. Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the constitutional question. His ideas about federalism and his interpretation of the Constitution as a document uniting the states under one supreme law were highly influential in the eyes of his contemporaries and would influence the rebuilding of the nation after the Civil War. Now that was a good debate! 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. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. 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 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. 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. Well, the southern states were infuriated. He must cut it with his sword. . Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. 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. . This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. Address to the Slaves of the United States. The debate was on. 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. 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. 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. 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. It was motivated by a dispute over the continued sale of western lands, an important source of revenue for the federal government. 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. God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. Understand the 1830 debate's significance through an overview of issues of the Constitution, the Union, and state sovereignty. Get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons. Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 20, 1830. 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. . . He joined Hayne in using this opportunity to try to detach the West from the East, and restore the old cooperation of the West and the South against New England. 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. Competing Conceptions of Union and Ordered Liberty in The Webster-Hayne 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. . . I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. In our contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same country; states, united under the same general government, having interests, common, associated, intermingled. . Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 26 and 27, 1830. Eloquence threw open the portals of eternal day. That led into a debate on the economy, in which Webster attacked the institution of slavery and Hayne labeled the policy of protectionist tariffs as the consolidation of a strong central government, which he called the greatest of evils. But, sir, we will pass over all this. . It laid the interdict against personal servitude, in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper, also, than all local constitutions. . But still, throughout American history, several debates have captured the nation's attention in a way that would make even Hollywood jealous. Is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? I am a Unionist, and in this sense a national Republican. a. an explanation of natural events that is well supported by scientific evidence b. a set of rules for ethical conduct during an experiment c. a statement that describes how natural events happen d. a possible answer to a scientific question Hayne was a great orator, filled with fiery passion and eloquent prose. On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than in Mexico. The people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better.
Notre Dame Leadership Seminar Waitlist, Henry And Charlotte Fanfiction Jealous, Why Marriage Doesn't Work For Our Generation, Teresa Tapia Husband, Articles W