All rights reserved. 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. 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. Prejudice Not Natural: The American Colonization "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July? Read reviews from world's largest community for readers. Debate on the Constitutionality of the Mexican War, Letters and Journals from the Oregon Trail. . This will co-operate with the feelings of patriotism to induce a state to avoid any measures calculated to endanger that connection. 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. But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. Drama, suspense, it's all there. I propose to consider it, and to compare it with the Constitution. It laid the interdict against personal servitude, in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper, also, than all local constitutions. Connecticut's proposal was an attempt to slow the growth of the nation, control westward expansion, and bolster the federal government's revenue. 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. 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. to expose them to the temptations inseparable from the direction and control of a fund which might be enlarged or diminished almost at pleasure, without imposing burthens upon the people? We resolved to make the best of the situation in which Providence had placed us, and to fulfil the high trust which had developed upon us as the owners of slaves, in the only way in which such a trust could be fulfilled, without spreading misery and ruin throughout the land. They will also better understand the debate's political context. They will not destroy it, they will not impair itthey will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! . . . 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. 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. The Webster Hayne Debate. Daniel Webster stood as a ready and formidable opponent from the north who, at different stages in his career, represented both the states of New Hampshire and Massachusetts. . . 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. 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. . 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. . 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. Van Buren responded to the Panic of 1837 with the idea of the independent treasury, which was a. a system of depositing money in select independent banks Hayne's few but zealous partizans shielded him still, and South Carolina spoke with pride of him. . 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. God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. This is the sum of what I understand from him, to be the South Carolina doctrine; and the doctrine which he maintains. 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. Thousands of these deluded victims of fanaticism were seduced into the enjoyment of freedom in our Northern cities. If the federal government, in all or any of its departments, are to prescribe the limits of its own authority; and the states are bound to submit to the decision, and are not to be allowed to examine and decide for themselves, when the barriers of the Constitution shall be overleaped, this is practically a government without limitation of powers; the states are at once reduced to mere petty corporations, and the people are entirely at your mercy. Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? He accused them of a desire to check the growth of the West in the interests of protection. Several state governments or courts, some in the north, had espoused the idea of nullification prior to 1828. 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. Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. 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. The measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. Record of the Organization and Proceedings of The Massachusetts Lawmakers Investigate Working Condit State (Colonial) Legislatures>Massachusetts State Legislature. A state will be restrained by a sincere love of the Union. 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. The debate was on. 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? My life upon it, sir, they would not. 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). Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 88,000 Would it be safe to confide such a treasure to the keeping of our national rulers? Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason thus. . The heated speeches were unplanned and stemmed from the debate over a resolution by Connecticut Senator Samuel A. . The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the states, as states, were parties to it. [was] fixed, forever, the character of the population in the vast regions Northwest of the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary servitude. You see, to the south, the Constitution was essentially a treaty signed between sovereign states. It develops the gentlemans whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. He must cut it with his sword. "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.. In this regard, Webster anticipated an argument that Abraham Lincoln made in his First Inaugural Address (1861). Sir, when arraigned before the bar of public opinion, on this charge of slavery, we can stand up with conscious rectitude, plead not guilty, and put ourselves upon God and our country. . The discussion took a wide range, going back to topics that had agitated the country before the Constitution was formed. 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 militia of the state will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. The theory that the states' may vote against unfair laws. . . . 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. . 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. Their own power over their own instrument remains. And what has been the consequence? . Webster and the North treated it as binding the states together as a single union. What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion. 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. It was plenary then, and never having been surrendered, must be plenary now. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. She has worked as a university writing consultant for over three years. Create your account. These irreconcilable views of national supremacy and state sovereignty framed the constitutional struggle that led to Civil War thirty years later. 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. Consolidation!that perpetual cry, both of terror and delusionconsolidation! When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. . The action, the drama, the suspensewho needs the movies? At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. 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. 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. Religious Views: Letter to the Editor of the Illin Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Douglas Faction), (Northern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. 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. 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). T he Zionist-evangelical back story goes back several decades, with 90-year-old televangelist Pat Robertson being a prime case study.. One of the more notable "coincidences" or anomalies Winter Watch brings to your attention is the image of Robertson on the cover of Time magazine in 1986 back before the public was red pilled by the Internet -as the pastor posed with a gesture called . . Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the constitutional question. 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. 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. 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. 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. Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. Representatives of the northern states were concerned by the rapid growth of the nation; just 27 years earlier, the Louisiana Purchase had nearly doubled the size of the nation, and the newly elected President Andrew Jackson was hungry for more territory. . The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Senator Daniel Webster] has gone out of his way to pass a high eulogium on the state of Ohio. . 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. Sir, I cordially respond to that appeal. It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. . If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have war. . But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the states. Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 20, 1830. 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 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. In January 1830, a debate on the nature of sovereignty in the America. Daniel webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 19, 1830. TeachingAmericanHistory.org is a project of the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University, 401 College Avenue, Ashland, Ohio 44805 PHONE (419) 289-5411 TOLL FREE (877) 289-5411 EMAIL [emailprotected], The Congress Sends Twelve Amendments to the States, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 3rd Debate Part I, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 3rd Debate Part II, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 4th Debate Part I, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 4th Debate Part II, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 6th Debate Part I, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 6th Debate Part II, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 7th Debate Part I, National Disfranchisement of Colored People, William Lloyd Garrison to Thomas Shipley. . 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.) 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. 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. 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. Lincoln-Douglas Debates History & Significance | What Was the Lincoln-Douglas Debate? Foote Idea To Limit The Sale Of Public Lands In The West To New Settlers. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. The Northwest Ordinance. . . I'm imagining that your answer is probably 'I do.' 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. Ham, one of Noahs sons, saw him uncovered, for which Noah cursed him by making Hams son, Canaan, a slave to Ham's brothers. succeed. Our notion of things is entirely different. While the debaters argued about slavery, the economy, protection tariffs, and western land, the real implication was the meaning of the United States Constitution. What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? 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. 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. 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. But, sir, the gentleman is mistaken. He was a lawyer turned congressional representative who eventually worked his way to the office of U.S. Secretary of State. 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. 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. The Webster-Hayne Debate between New Hampshire Senator Daniel Webster and South Carolina Senator Robert Young Hayne highlighted the sectional nature of the controversy. 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? Daniel webster (ma) and sen. Hayne of . I am a Unionist, and in this sense a national Republican. The Revelation on Celestial Marriage: Trouble Amon Hon. 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. . 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. 1824 Presidential Election, Candidates & Significance | Who Won the Election of 1824? The Senate debates between Whig Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Democrat Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina in January 1830 started out as a disagreement over the sale of Western lands and turned into one of the most famous verbal contests in American history. 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? Hayne entered the U.S. Senate in 1823 and soon became prominent as a spokesman for the South and for the . . [2] We deal in no abstractions. 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. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. Now, I wish to be informedhowthis state interference is to be put in practice, without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. 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 United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. MTEL Speech: Public Discourse & Debate in the U.S. . . This seemed like an Eastern spasm of jealousy at the progress of the West. The debate was important because it laid out the arguments in favor of nationalism in the face of growing sectionalism. This means that South Carolina is essentially its own nation, Georgia is its own nation, and so on. . Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. 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. The other way was through the sale of federally-owned land to private citizens. Webster argued that the American people had created the Union to promote the good of the whole. Excerpts from Ratification Documents of Virginia a Ratifying Conventions>New York Ratifying Convention. . I deem far otherwise of the Union of the states; and so did the Framers of the Constitution themselves. . All of these ideas, however, are only parts of the main point. . Sir, an immense national treasury would be a fund for corruption. Hayne quotes from the Virginia Resolution (1798), authored by Thomas Jefferson, to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). Our Core Document Collection allows students to read history in the words of those who made it. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 27, 1830. . Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. But his calm, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. . Sir, there exists, moreover, a deep and settled conviction of the benefits, which result from a close connection of all the states, for purposes of mutual protection and defense. . Let their last feeble and lingering glance, rather behold the gorgeous Ensign of the Republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original luster, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscuredbearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as, what is all this worth? This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government, and the source of its power. . . . . Well, it's important to remember that the nation was still young and much different than what we think of today. Tariff of 1816 History & Significance | What was the Tariff of 1816? 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? It is the common pretense. The people had had quite enough of that kind of government, under the Confederacy. So what was this debate really about? And here it will be necessary to go back to the origin of the federal government. 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? In a time when the country was undergoing some drastic changes, this debate managed to encapsulate the essence of the growing tensions dividing the nation. Rachel Venter is a recent graduate of Metropolitan State University of Denver. . Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. . 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. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. For all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in anything said or intimated by me. 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.. 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. . Benton was rising in renown as the advocate not only of Western settlers but of a new theory that the public lands should be given away instead of sold to them. Under that system, the legal actionthe application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado. Go to these cities now, and ask the question. Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural So "The Whole Affair Seems the Work of a Madman", John Brown and the Principle of Nonresistance. Webster's "Second Reply to Hayne" was generally regarded as "the most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress."[1]. Well, you're not alone. An error occurred trying to load this video. Sir, it is because South Carolina loves the Union, and would preserve it forever, that she is opposing now, while there is hope, those usurpations of the federal government, which, once established, will, sooner or later, tear this Union into fragments. .Readers will finish the book with a clear idea of the reason Webster's "Reply" became so influential in its own day. 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. But I do not admit that, under the Constitution, and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a state government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever. Battle of Fort Sumter in the Civil War | Who Won the Battle of Fort Sumter? . He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. . 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. . Most are forgettable, to put it charitably. 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. There was no clear winner of the debate, but the Union's victory over the Confederacy just a few decades later brought Webster's ideas to fruition.
Summer Meadow Cowfold, Phenols May Certain Rubber And Plastic Materials, Articles W