succeed. Speech on Assuming Office of the President. The United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. - Definition and Uses, Public Speaking: Assignment 1 - Informative Speech, Public Speaking: Assignment 3 - Special Occasion Speech, The Role of Probability Distributions, Random Numbers & the Computer in Simulations, The Monte Carlo Simulation: Scope & Common Applications, Working Scholars Bringing Tuition-Free College to the Community, The methods by which the federal government earned its revenue, The federal government's surveying and selling of land west of the Mississippi River, The issue of slavery, which was beginning to divide the Northern and Southern states, The balance of power between federal and state governments. . This debate exposed the critically different understandings of the nature of the American. . 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. Webster was eloquent, he was educated, he was witty, and he was a staunch defender of American liberty. Hayne entered the U.S. Senate in 1823 and soon became prominent as a spokesman for the South and for the . 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. 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. . 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. Why? An undefinable dread now went abroad that men were planning against the peace of the nation, that the Union was in danger; and citizens looked more closely after its safety and welfare. 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. . See what I mean? It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to bear up any other than free men. . Under that system, the legal actionthe application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. Webster rose the next day in his seat to make his reply. webster hayne debate Flashcards | Quizlet I understand him to maintain this right, as a right existing under the Constitution; not as a right to overthrow it, on the ground of extreme necessity, such as would justify violent revolution. . We do not impose geographical limits to our patriotic feeling or regard; we do not follow rivers and mountains, and lines of latitude, to find boundaries, beyond which public improvements do not benefit us. Webster's "Second Reply to Hayne" was generally regarded as "the most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress."[1]. If an inquiry should ever be instituted in these matters, however, it will be found that the profits of the slave trade were not confined to the South. My life upon it, sir, they would not. 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. On the one side it is contended that the public land ought to be reserved as a permanent fund for revenue, and future distribution among the states, while, on the other, it is insisted that the whole of these lands of right belong to, and ought to be relinquished to, the states in which they lie. It was a great and salutary measure of prevention. These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened . But his reply was gathered from the choicest arguments and the most decadent thoughts that had long floated through his brain while this crisis was gathering; and bringing these materials together in a lucid and compact shape, he calmly composed and delivered before another crowded and breathless auditory a speech full of burning passages, which will live as long as the American Union, and the grandest effort of his life. 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. 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. The United States, under the Constitution and federal government, was a single, unified nation, not a coalition of sovereign states. Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. For Calhoun, see the Speech on Abolition Petitions and the Speech on the Oregon Bill. [Its leader] would have a knot before him, which he could not untie. Broadside Advertisement for Runaway Slave, Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a Free-Soiler, Free & Slave-holding States and Territories. 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. Regional Conflict in America: Debate Over States' Rights. 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.) As a pious son of Federalism, Webster went the full length of the required defense. What was the main issue of the Webster-Hayne debate? 1824 Presidential Election, Candidates & Significance | Who Won the Election of 1824? The Revelation on Celestial Marriage: Trouble Amon Hon. 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 will not look back to inquire whether our fathers were guiltless in introducing slaves into this country. 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. Create your account. 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. 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 Webster-Hayne debate laid out key issues faced by the Senate in the 1820s and 1830s. 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. Create your account, 15 chapters | 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 the Frontier in American Histo South Carolinas Ordinance of Nullification. We had no other general government. Why was the Hayne-Webster debate important? - eNotes.com If these opinions be thought doubtful, they are, nevertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. I regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest of evils, both moral and political. . What they said I believe; fully and sincerely believe, that the Union of the states is essential to the prosperity and safety of the states. Webster's Reply to Hayne - National Park Service 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 . When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the states, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. Webster and Hayne on the American Constitution I shrink almost instinctively from a course, however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feelings, and sectional jealousies. 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. Webster-Hayne Debate - U-S-History . 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. Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 88,000 . 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. Webster-Hayne debate - Wikisource, the free online library Understand the 1830 debate's significance through an overview of issues of the Constitution, the Union, and state sovereignty. Historians love a good debate. To them, this was a scheme to give the federal government more control over the cost of land by creating a scarcity. 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. One was through protective tariffs, high taxes on imports and exports. . Webster replied to his speech the next day and left not a shred of the charge, baseless as it was. Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. 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. How do Webster and Hayne differ in regard to their understandings of the proper relationship among the several states and between the states and the national government? I now proceed to show that it is perfectly safe, and will practically have no effect but to keep the federal government within the limits of the Constitution, and prevent those unwarrantable assumptions of power, which cannot fail to impair the rights of the states, and finally destroy the Union itself. Read reviews from world's largest community for readers. By establishing justice, promoting domestic tranquility, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. This is the true reading of the Constitution. Now, have they given away that right, or agreed to limit or restrict it in any respect? They attack nobody, and menace nobody. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. Besides that, however, the federal government was still figuring out its role in American society. . 1830's APUSH Flashcards | Quizlet . Consolidation!that perpetual cry, both of terror and delusionconsolidation! Ah! I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. During his first years in Congress, Webster railed against President James Madison 's war policies, invoking a states' rights argument to oppose a conscription bill that went down to defeat.. For the next several days, the men traded speeches which contemporaries of the time described as the greatest orations ever delivered in the Senate. . Battle of Fort Sumter in the Civil War | Who Won the Battle of Fort Sumter? What was going on? Let us look at his probablemodus operandi. . This would have been the case even if no positive provision to that effect had been inserted in that instrument. So they could finish selling the lands already surveyed. . Thirty years before the Civil War broke out, disunion appeared to be on the horizon with the Nullification Crisis. 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 heated speeches were unplanned and stemmed from the debate over a resolution by Connecticut Senator Samuel A. . 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. 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 Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches delivered before the Senate in 1830. I maintain that, from the day of the cession of the territories by the states to Congress, no portion of the country has acted, either with more liberality or more intelligence, on the subject of the Western lands in the new states, than New England. 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. 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. 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. Francis O. J. Smith to Secretary of State Dan Special Message to the House of Representatives, Special Message to Congress on Mexican Relations. Rachel Venter is a recent graduate of Metropolitan State University of Denver. 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. . 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. It is, sir, the peoples Constitution, the peoples government; made for the people; made by the people; and answerable to the people. The Most Famous Senate Speech January 26, 1830 The debate began simply enough, centering on the seemingly prosaic subjects of tariff and public land policy. Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you . . 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. 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. Several state governments or courts, some in the north, had espoused the idea of nullification prior to 1828. But still, throughout American history, several debates have captured the nation's attention in a way that would make even Hollywood jealous. Judiciary Act of 1801 | Overview, History & Significance, General Ulysses S. Grant Takes Charge: His Strategic Plan for Ending the War. And who are its enemies? . Record of the Organization and Proceedings of The Massachusetts Lawmakers Investigate Working Condit State (Colonial) Legislatures>Massachusetts State Legislature. In January 1830, a debate on the nature of sovereignty in the American federal union occurred in the United States Senate between Senators Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina. 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'm imagining that your answer is probably 'I do.' . 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. . . . 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. . He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. . In the course of my former remarks, I took occasion to deprecate, as one of the greatest of evils, the consolidation of this government. 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. . Its like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. 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. The excited crowd which had packed the Senate chamber, filling every seat on the floor and in the galleries, and all the available standing room, dispersed after the orator's last grand apostrophe had died away in the air, with national pride throbbing at the heart. If the government of the United States be the agent of the state governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling it; if it be the agent of the people, then the people alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or reform it. . This will co-operate with the feelings of patriotism to induce a state to avoid any measures calculated to endanger that connection. The significance of Daniel Webster's argument went far beyond the immediate proposal at hand. 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. 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? But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the states. . This government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. 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. 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. Rush-Bagot Treaty Structure & Effects | What was the Rush-Bagot Agreement? The Hayne-Webster Debate - Constitution.org It laid the interdict against personal servitude, in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper, also, than all local constitutions. . Whose agent is it? Hayne, Robert Young | South Carolina Encyclopedia Competing Conceptions of Union and Ordered Liberty in What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? 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. 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). Famous Speeches by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. MTEL Speech: Ethical & Legal Communications, MTEL Speech: Delivering Effective Speeches, MTEL Speech: Using Communication Aids for Speeches, NY Regents Exam - US History and Government: Tutoring Solution, Business 104: Information Systems and Computer Applications, GED Math: Quantitative, Arithmetic & Algebraic Problem Solving, GED Social Studies: Civics & Government, US History, Economics, Geography & World, CSET Foundational-Level General Science (215) Prep, CSET English Subtests I & III (105 & 107): Practice & Study Guide, Managing Risk to Enhance & Maintain Your Health, Types of Healthcare Professionals & Delivery Systems, Consumer Health: Laws, Regulations & Agencies, The Role of School Health Advisory Councils in Texas, Teaching Sensitive or Controversial Health Issues, Calculating the Square Root of 27: How-To & Steps, Linear Transformations: Properties & Examples, Chemical Safety: Preparation, Use, Storage, and Disposal, Spectrophotometers: Definition, Uses, and Parts, What is an Autoclave? There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of the South. . . It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. . 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. Senator Foote, of Connecticut, submitted a proposition inquiring into the expediency of limiting the sales of public lands to those already in the market. 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). Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 26 and 27, 1830. The Webster-Hayne Debate: Defining Nationhood in the Early American The Webster-Hayne Debate - 1830 - YouTube Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 27, 1830. . 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. Who Won the Webster-Hayne Debate of 1830? - Abbeville Institute Webster and the North treated it as binding the states together as a single union. lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than in Mexico. . I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. These irreconcilable views of national supremacy and state sovereignty framed the constitutional struggle that led to Civil War thirty years later. It was plenary then, and never having been surrendered, must be plenary now. . . 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 debate itself, a nine-day long unplanned exchange between Senators Robert Y. Hayne and Daniel Webster, directly addressed the methods by which the federal government was generating revenue, namely through protective tariffs and the selling of federal lands in the newly acquired western territories. Certainly, sir, I am, and ever have been of that opinion. 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. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Senator Daniel Webster] has gone out of his way to pass a high eulogium on the state of Ohio. Will it promote the welfare of the United States to have at our disposal a permanent treasury, not drawn from the pockets of the people, but to be derived from a source independent of them? . In all the efforts that have been made by South Carolina to resist the unconstitutional laws which Congress has extended over them, she has kept steadily in view the preservation of the Union, by the only means by which she believes it can be long preserveda firm, manly, and steady resistance against usurpation. 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. 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!
Old Town Mexican Grill Canton, Ms,
Simon City Royals Mississippi,
How Much To Join Brooklake Country Club,
Articles A
