But his standpoint was purely local and sectional. Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . The dominant historical opinion of the famous debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Young Hayne of South Carolina which took place in the United States Senate in 1830 has long been that Webster defeated Hayne both as an orator and a statesman. See Genesis 9:2027. We could not send them back to the shores from whence their fathers had been taken; their numbers forbade the thought, even if we did not know that their condition here is infinitely preferable to what it possibly could be among the barren sands and savage tribes of Africa; and it was wholly irreconcilable with all our notions of humanity to tear asunder the tender ties which they had formed among us, to gratify the feelings of a false philanthropy. . Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. And here it will be necessary to go back to the origin of the federal government. Nor those other words of delusion and folly,liberty first, and union afterwardsbut everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole Heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heartliberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable! . The discussion took a wide range, going back to topics that had agitated the country before the Constitution was formed. 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]. Robert Young Hayne spent more than two decades in elected offices, including mayor of Charleston, member of South Carolina's legislature, attorney general, and then governor of the state. . . Address to the People of the United States, by the What are the main points of difference between Webster and Hayne, especially on the question of the nature of the Union and the Constitution? 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. The significance of Daniel Webster's argument went far beyond the immediate proposal at hand. Edited and introduced by Jason W. Stevens. 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. 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.. 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." Under that system, the legal actionthe application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. And what has been the consequence? 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 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. This is the true constitutional consolidation. If slavery, as it now exists in this country, be an evil, we of the present day found it ready made to our hands. As a pious son of Federalism, Webster went the full length of the required defense. Which of the following statements best represents the desires of the Northern states during the debate of Missouri statehood? Certainly, sir, I am, and ever have been of that opinion. 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. The United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) | Case, Significance & Summary. Hayne and the South saw it as basically a treaty between sovereign states. Hayne was a great orator, filled with fiery passion and eloquent prose. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. . 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. 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. It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to bear up any other than free men. . ", What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?. Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the constitutional question. 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. Well, it's important to remember that the nation was still young and much different than what we think of today. The Webster-Hayne debate laid out key issues faced by the Senate in the 1820s and 1830s. These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened . 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. In January 1830, a debate on the nature of sovereignty in the America. . What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion. . The taxes paid by foreign nations to export American cotton, for example, generated lots of money for the government. . 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. So they could finish selling the lands already surveyed. They significantly declare, that it is time to calculate the value of the Union; and their aim seems to be to enumerate, and to magnify all the evils, real and imaginary, which the government under the Union produces. 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 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. . Let us look at his probablemodus operandi. Webster-Hayne Debate. This would have been the case even if no positive provision to that effect had been inserted in that instrument. This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. . He must say to his followers [members of the state militia], defend yourselves with your bayonets; and this is warcivil war. And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentlemans doctrine a little into its practical application. . The following states came from the territory north and west of the Ohio river: Ohio (1803), Indiana (1816), Illinois (1818), Michigan (1837), Wisconsin (1848) and Minnesota (1858). Crittenden Compromise Plan & Reception | What was the Crittenden Compromise? . This, sir, is General Washingtons consolidation. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. . 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. Well, the southern states were infuriated. . foote wanted to stop surveying lands until they could sell the ones already looked at It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. I love a good debate. A four-speech debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina, in January 1830. A state will be restrained by a sincere love of the Union. 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. 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 . If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have war. 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. . One of those was the Webster-Hayne debate, a series of unplanned speeches presented before the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830. Those who would confine the federal government strictly within the limits prescribed by the Constitutionwho would preserve to the states and the people all powers not expressly delegatedwho would make this a federal and not a national Unionand who, administering the government in a spirit of equal justice, would make it a blessing and not a curse. Can any man believe, sir, that, if twenty-three millions per annum was now levied by direct taxation, or by an apportionment of the same among the states, instead of being raised by an indirect tax, of the severe effect of which few are aware, that the waste and extravagance, the unauthorized imposition of duties, and appropriations of money for unconstitutional objects, would have been tolerated for a single year? Sir, I cordially respond to that appeal. I'm imagining that your answer is probably 'I do.' Gloomy and downcast of late, Massachusetts men walked the avenue as though the fife and drum were before them. The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States H What Are the Colored People Doing for Themselves? Having thus distinctly stated the points in dispute between the gentleman and myself, I proceed to examine them. This is a delicate and sensitive point, in southern feeling; and of late years it has always been touched, and generally with effect, whenever the object has been to unite the whole South against northern men, or northern measures. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. . . 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. The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. What interest, asks he, has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio? Sir, this very question is full of significance. Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person. 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. 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. 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. 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. . Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions | Overview, Impact & Significance, Public Speaking for Teachers: Professional Development, AEPA Earth Science (AZ045): Practice & Study Guide, ORELA Early Childhood Education: Practice & Study Guide, Praxis Middle School English Language Arts (5047) Prep, MTLE Physical Education: Practice & Study Guide, ILTS Mathematics (208): Test Practice and Study Guide, MTLE Earth & Space Science: Practice & Study Guide, AEPA Business Education (NT309): Help & Review, Counselor Preparation Comprehensive Examination (CPCE): Exam Prep & Study Guide, GACE Special Education Adapted Curriculum Test I (083) Prep, GACE Special Education Adapted Curriculum Test II (084) Prep, Create an account to start this course today. The idea of a strong federal government The ability of the people to revolt against an unfair government The theory that the states' may vote against unfair laws The role of the president in commanding the government 2 See answers Advertisement holesstanham Answer: Assuredly not. . 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. If I had, sir, the powers of a magician, and could, by a wave of my hand, convert this capital into gold for such a purpose, I would not do it. [2] We deal in no abstractions. [Its leader] would have a knot before him, which he could not untie. They switched from a. the tariff of 1828 to national power . Nor shall I stop there. The Webster-Hayne debates began over one issue but quickly switched to another. 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. . . 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. 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. 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. Let's start by looking at the United States around 1830. . . 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. . So what was this debate really about? . Senator Foote, of Connecticut, submitted a proposition inquiring into the expediency of limiting the sales of public lands to those already in the market. Jackson himself would raise a national toast for 'the Union' later that year. An equally talented orator, Webster rose as the advocate of the North in the debate with his captivating reply to Hayne's initial argument. Post-Civil War, as the nation rebuilt and reconciled the balance between federal and state government, federal law became the supreme law of the land, just as Webster desired. It is not the creature of state Legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on state sovereignties. . . The heated speeches were unplanned and stemmed from the debate over a resolution by Connecticut Senator Samuel A. 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. . Congress could only recommendtheir acts were not of binding force, till the states had adopted and sanctioned them. Noah grew a vineyard, got drunk on wine and lay naked. On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than in Mexico. . He must cut it with his sword. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. The Northwest Ordinance. What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? 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. 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 .
Newhouse Family Politics,
Articles W
