. . . The gentleman has made an eloquent appeal to our hearts in favor of union. . Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado. On January 19, 1830, Hayne attacked the Foot Resolution and labeled the Northeasterners as selfish and unprincipled for their support of protectionism and conservative land policies. I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. Besides that, however, the federal government was still figuring out its role in American society. Daniel webster (ma) and sen. Hayne of . 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. The faction of voters in the North were against slavery and feared it spreading into new territory. The honorable member himself is not, I trust, and can never be, one of these. New England, the Union, and the Constitution in its integrity, all were triumphantly vindicated. . 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. Some of his historical deductions may be questioned; but far above all possible error on the part of her leaders, stood colonial and Revolutionary New England, and the sturdy, intelligent, and thriving people whose loyalty to the Union had never failed, and whose home, should ill befall the nation, would yet prove liberty's last shelter. 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. . Drama, suspense, it's all there. . The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions Add Song of the Spinners from the Lowell Offering. The gentleman, therefore, only follows out his own principles; he does no more than arrive at the natural conclusions of his own doctrines; he only announces the true results of that creed, which he has adopted himself, and would persuade others to adopt, when he thus declares that South Carolina has no interest in a public work in Ohio. sir, this is but the old story. An error occurred trying to load this video. 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. He served as a U.S. senator from 1823 to 1832, and was a leading proponent of the states' rights doctrine. 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, 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. foote wanted to stop surveying lands until they could sell the ones already looked at One of the most storied match-ups in Senate history, the 1830 Webster-Hayne debate began with a beef between Northeast states and Western states over a plan to restrict . . The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the Supreme Law. . We had no other general government. . . Which of the following statements best represents the desires of the Northern states during the debate of Missouri statehood? She has worked as a university writing consultant for over three years. . Webster replied to his speech the next day and left not a shred of the charge, baseless as it was. But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the states. Well, the southern states were infuriated. . Sir, the very chief end, the main design, for which the whole Constitution was framed and adopted, was to establish a government that should not be obliged to act through state agency, or depend on state opinion and state discretion. 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. . The taxes paid by foreign nations to export American cotton, for example, generated lots of money for the government. Connecticut's proposal was an attempt to slow the growth of the nation, control westward expansion, and bolster the federal government's revenue. Webster believed that the Constitution should be viewed as a binding document between the United States rather than an agreement between sovereign states. All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. "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 heated speeches were unplanned and stemmed from the debate over a resolution by Connecticut Senator Samuel A. The theory that the states' may vote against unfair laws. [Its leader] would have a knot before him, which he could not untie. Well, let's look at the various parts. Create your account, 15 chapters | . . . Jackson himself would raise a national toast for 'the Union' later that year. . 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. I did not utter a single word, which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. 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. Thousands of these deluded victims of fanaticism were seduced into the enjoyment of freedom in our Northern cities. I feel like its a lifeline. The measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. The Destiny of America, Speech at the Dedication o An Address. 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. This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. Prejudice Not Natural: The American Colonization "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July? 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. The Constitutional Convention: The Great Compromise, The Webster-Hayne Debate of 1830: Summary & Issues, The History of American Presidential Debates, Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening: Sermons & Biography, Who Was Susan B. Anthony? It is one from which we are not disposed to shrink, in whatever form or under whatever circumstances it may be pressed upon us. 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. lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. . A four-speech debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina, in January 1830. Whose agent is it? 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. It is the servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different wills and different purposes, and yet bound to obey all. 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. . . . They had burst forth from arguments about a decision by Connecticut Senator Samuel Foote. Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Breckinridge Facti (Southern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. 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. We found that we had to deal with a people whose physical, moral, and intellectual habits and character, totally disqualified them from the enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. we find the most opposite and irreconcilable opinions between the two parties which I have before described. Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. 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. 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. An equally. 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." The people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. The United States, under the Constitution and federal government, was a single, unified nation, not a coalition of sovereign states. 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. 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. 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? 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. Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 20, 1830. But his standpoint was purely local and sectional. 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 contrasting the state of Ohio with Kentucky, for the purpose of pointing out the superiority of the former, and of attributing that superiority to the existence of slavery, in the one state, and its absence in the other, I thought I could discern the very spirit of the Missouri question[1] intruded into this debate, for objects best known to the gentleman himself. Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. It was of a partizan and censorious character and drew nearly all the chief senators out. It is only regarded as a possible means of good; or on the other hand, as a possible means of evil. 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. 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. Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? What followed, the Webster Hayne debate, was one of the most famous exchanges in Senate history. 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. 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. 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. 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. The Webster-Hayne debate laid out key issues faced by the Senate in the 1820s and 1830s. He must say to his followers [members of the state militia], defend yourselves with your bayonets; and this is warcivil war. 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. It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason thus. 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. 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. After his term as a senator, he served as the Governor of South Carolina. . It would enable Congress and the Executive to exercise a control over states, as well as over great interests in the country, nay, even over corporations and individualsutterly destructive of the purity, and fatal to the duration of our institutions. Now, have they given away that right, or agreed to limit or restrict it in any respect? . Inflamed and mortified at this repulse, Hayne soon returned to the assault, primed with a two-day speech, which at great length vaunted the patriotism of South Carolina and bitterly attacked New England, dwelling particularly upon her conduct during the late war. 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. 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. South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification 1832 | Crisis, Cause & Issues. This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government, and the source of its power. 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. . 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. This is the true constitutional consolidation. The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . This seemed like an Eastern spasm of jealousy at the progress of the West. Webster-Hayne Debate book. If these opinions be thought doubtful, they are, nevertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. Consolidation, like the tariff, grates upon his ear. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches delivered before the Senate in 1830. Liberty has been to them the greatest of calamities, the heaviest of curses. You see, to the south, the Constitution was essentially a treaty signed between sovereign states. Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . These irreconcilable views of national supremacy and state sovereignty framed the constitutional struggle that led to Civil War thirty years later. . 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. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. . Between January and May 1830, twenty-one of the forty-eight senators delivered a staggering sixty-five speeches on the nature of the Union. 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. Is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? 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. . One was through protective tariffs, high taxes on imports and exports. Regional Conflict in America: Debate Over States' Rights. My life upon it, sir, they would not. Perhaps a quotation from a speech in Parliament in 1803 of Lord Castlereagh, Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry (17691822) during a debate over the conduct of British officials in India. Rachel Venter is a recent graduate of Metropolitan State University of Denver. 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 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. Web hardcover $30.00 paperback $17.00 kindle nook book ibook. But his calm, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. He was a lawyer turned congressional representative who eventually worked his way to the office of U.S. Secretary of State. 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. Most assuredly, I need not say I differ with him, altogether and most widely, on that point. He remained a Southern Unionist through his long public career and a good type of the growing class of statesman devoted to slave interests who loved the Union as it was and doted upon its compromises. . 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 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. Gloomy and downcast of late, Massachusetts men walked the avenue as though the fife and drum were before them. Webster's second reply to Hayne, in January 1830, became a famous defense of the federal union: "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable." Just beneath the surface of this debate lay the elements of the developing sectional crisis between North and South.
Hoi4 Best Conscription Law,
248 Jeffer Dr, Westwego,
Infected Tracheostomy Due To Staphylococcal Abscess Of The Neck,
What Is The Rationale Behind Document 1 Usability Testing,
Midwifery Birth Center At St Joseph,
Articles W