what idea was espoused with the webster hayne debates what idea was espoused with the webster hayne debates

She has worked as a university writing consultant for over three years. 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. Sir, all our difficulties on this subject have arisen from interference from abroad, which has disturbed, and may again disturb, our domestic tranquility, just so far as to bring down punishment upon the heads of the unfortunate victims of a fanatical and mistaken humanity. . Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Breckinridge Facti (Southern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. President John Quincy Adams and the Election of 1824. All of these contentious topics were touched upon in Webster and Hayne's nine day long debate. Correct answers: 2 question: Which of the following is the best definition of a hypothesis? 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. But, sir, the task has been forced upon me, and I proceed right onward to the performance of my duty; be the consequences what they may, the responsibility is with those who have imposed upon me this necessity. [O]pinions were expressed yesterday on the general subject of the public lands, and on some other subjects, by the gentleman from South Carolina [Senator Robert Hayne], so widely different from my own, that I am not willing to let the occasion pass without some reply. Web hardcover $30.00 paperback $17.00 kindle nook book ibook. sir, this is but the old story. 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. 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. . God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. . 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. . . What followed, the Webster Hayne debate, was one of the most famous exchanges in Senate history. . It would be equally fatal to the sovereignty and independence of the states. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. . 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? In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. 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. . . . It was a great and salutary measure of prevention. . 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. The debate was important because it laid out the arguments in favor of nationalism in the face of growing sectionalism. An equally talented orator, Webster rose as the advocate of the North in the debate with his captivating reply to Hayne's initial argument. See Genesis 9:2027. . To them, this was a scheme to give the federal government more control over the cost of land by creating a scarcity. And here it will be necessary to go back to the origin of the federal government. . The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. . To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. 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. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches delivered before the Senate in 1830. 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. . 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. . 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). 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. His ideas about federalism and his interpretation of the Constitution as a document uniting the states under one supreme law were highly influential in the eyes of his contemporaries and would influence the rebuilding of the nation after the Civil War. He had allowed himself but a single night from eve to morn to prepare for a critical and crowning occasion. But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. . The discussion took a wide range, going back to topics that had agitated the country before the Constitution was formed. Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . 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. The people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. Mr. Webster arose, and, in conclusion, said: A few words, Mr. President, on this constitutional argument, which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstruct. Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the constitutional question. . All regulated governments, all free governments, have been broken up by similar disinterested and well-disposed interference! So they could finish selling the lands already surveyed. South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification 1832 | Crisis, Cause & Issues. Besides that, however, the federal government was still figuring out its role in American society. . Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural So "The Whole Affair Seems the Work of a Madman", John Brown and the Principle of Nonresistance. 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. . A four-speech debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina, in January 1830. 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. Congress could only recommendtheir acts were not of binding force, till the states had adopted and sanctioned them. While the debaters argued about slavery, the economy, protection tariffs, and western land, the real implication was the meaning of the United States Constitution. 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. Go to these cities now, and ask the question. Let's start by looking at the United States around 1830. 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. Jackson himself would raise a national toast for 'the Union' later that year. Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person. In the course of my former remarks, I took occasion to deprecate, as one of the greatest of evils, the consolidation of this government. The heated speeches were unplanned and stemmed from the debate over a resolution by Connecticut Senator Samuel A. I deem far otherwise of the Union of the states; and so did the Framers of the Constitution themselves. At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . 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? . It was motivated by a dispute over the continued sale of western lands, an important source of revenue for the federal government. The significance of Daniel Webster's argument went far beyond the immediate proposal at hand. The debate, which took place between January 19th and January 27th, 1830, encapsulated the major issues facing the newly founded United States in the 1820s and 1830s; the balance of power between the federal and state governments, the development of the democratic process, and the growing tension between Northern and Southern states. 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.. The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. 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. Webster-Hayne Debate book. . Between January and May 1830, twenty-one of the forty-eight senators delivered a staggering sixty-five speeches on the nature of the Union. 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. . And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentlemans doctrine a little into its practical application. . Webster believed that the Constitution should be viewed as a binding document between the United States rather than an agreement between sovereign states. . . foote wanted to stop surveying lands until they could sell the ones already looked at 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? 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. For all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in anything said or intimated by me. . 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]. There was an end to all apprehension. 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. Why? . The 1830 WebsterHayne debate centered around the South Carolina nullification crisis of the late 1820s, but historians have largely ignored the sectional interests underpinning Webster's argument on behalf of Unionism and a transcendent nationalism. . . But the feeling is without all adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists wholly groundless. Lincoln-Douglas Debates History & Significance | What Was the Lincoln-Douglas Debate? In coming to the consideration of the next great question, what ought to be the future policy of the government in relation to the public lands? Before his term as a U.S. senator, Hayne had served as a state senator, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, South Carolina's Speaker of the House, and Attorney General of South Carolina. An equally. The United States, under the Constitution and federal government, was a single, unified nation, not a coalition of sovereign states. . 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. . Finally, sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the states will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the Constitution. 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. 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? 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. The Webster-Hayne Debate between New Hampshire Senator Daniel Webster and South Carolina Senator Robert Young Hayne highlighted the sectional nature of the controversy. 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 . After his term as a senator, he served as the Governor of South Carolina. MTEL Speech: Public Discourse & Debate in the U.S. Webster denied it and, attempting to draw Hayne into a direct confrontation, disparaged slavery and attacked the constitutional scruples of southern nullifiers and their apparent willingness to calculate the Union's value in monetary terms. For Calhoun, see the Speech on Abolition Petitions and the Speech on the Oregon Bill. Daniel webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the. This is the sense in which the Framers of the Constitution use the word consolidation; and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. . 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. As sovereign states, each state could individually interpret the Constitution and even leave the Union altogether. . In January 1830, a debate on the nature of sovereignty in the America. Sir, I should fear the rebuke of no intelligent gentleman of Kentucky, were I to ask whether, if such an ordinance could have been applied to his own state, while it yet was a wilderness, and before Boone had passed the gap of the Alleghany, he does not suppose it would have contributed to the ultimate greatness of that commonwealth? 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. They have agreed, that certain specific powers shall be exercised by the federal government; but the moment that government steps beyond the limits of its charter, the right of the states to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them,[7] is as full and complete as it was before the Constitution was formed. It develops the gentlemans whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. The Revelation on Celestial Marriage: Trouble Amon Hon. 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. 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. Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. . 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. To them, the more money the central government made, the stronger it became and the more it took rights away from the states to govern themselves. Let us look at the historical facts. Sir, I am one of those who believe that the very life of our system is the independence of the states, and that there is no evil more to be deprecated than the consolidation of this government. We see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow. Historians love a good debate. Rush-Bagot Treaty Structure & Effects | What was the Rush-Bagot Agreement? 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. They will also better understand the debate's political context. The arena selected for a first impression was the Senate, where the arch-heretic himself presided and guided the onset with his eye. 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. 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. States' rights (South) vs. nationalism (North). Compare And Contrast The Tension Between North And South. Wilmot Proviso of 1846: Overview & Significance | What was the Wilmot Proviso? . . South Carolina nullification was now coming in sight, and a celebrated debate that belongs to the first session exposed its claims and its fallacies to the country. This feeling, always carefully kept alive, and maintained at too intense a heat to admit discrimination or reflection, is a lever of great power in our political machine. But his standpoint was purely local and sectional. 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. 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.. Nor shall I stop there. 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. Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. They will also better understand the debate's political context. Get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons. Debate on the Constitutionality of the Mexican War, Letters and Journals from the Oregon Trail. 1824 Presidential Election, Candidates & Significance | Who Won the Election of 1824? To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. Hayne argued that the sovereign and independent states had created the Union to promote their particular interests. For the next several days, the men traded speeches which contemporaries of the time described as the greatest orations ever delivered in the Senate. 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! First, New England was vindicated. Southern ships and Southern sailors were not the instruments of bringing slaves to the shores of America, nor did our merchants reap the profits of that accursed traffic.. The 1830 Webster-Hayne debate centered around the South Carolina nullification crisis of the late 1820s, but historians have largely ignored the sectional interests underpinning Webster's argument on behalf of Unionism and a transcendent nationalism. 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. Pet Banks History & Effects | What are Pet Banks? . What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? Consolidation!that perpetual cry, both of terror and delusionconsolidation! Read reviews from world's largest community for readers. 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. 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. Prejudice Not Natural: The American Colonization "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July? Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitution under which we sit. 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. Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. Sir, an immense national treasury would be a fund for corruption. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts while he exonerates me personally from the charge, intimates that there is a party in the country who are looking to disunion. 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. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you 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 . The impression which has gone abroad, of the weakness of the South, as connected with the slave question, exposes us to such constant attacks, has done us so much injury, and is calculated to produce such infinite mischiefs, that I embrace the occasion presented by the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts, to declare that we are ready to meet the question promptly and fearlessly. Well, it's important to remember that the nation was still young and much different than what we think of today. But still, throughout American history, several debates have captured the nation's attention in a way that would make even Hollywood jealous. 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. . . Webster's articulation of the concept of the Union went on to shape American attitudes about the federal government. The whole form and structure of the federal government, the opinions of the Framers of the Constitution, and the organization of the state governments, demonstrate that though the states have surrendered certain specific powers, they have not surrendered their sovereignty. You see, to the south, the Constitution was essentially a treaty signed between sovereign states. Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. 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. Thirty years before the Civil War broke out, disunion appeared to be on the horizon with the Nullification Crisis. The action, the drama, the suspensewho needs the movies? Its like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. 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. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the Supreme Law. . 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. MTEL Speech: Notable Debates & Speeches in U.S. History, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858: Summary & Significance, Psychological Research & Experimental Design, All Teacher Certification Test Prep Courses, The Significance of Daniel Webster's Argument, MTEL Speech: Principles of Argument & Debate, MTEL Speech: Understanding Persuasive Communication, MTEL Speech: Public Argument in Democratic Societies. 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. 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. The debaters were Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. 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. Even Benton, whose connection with the debate made him at first belittle these grand utterances, soon felt the danger and repudiated the company of the nullifiers. I will struggle while I have life, for our altars and our fire sides, and if God gives me strength, I will drive back the invader discomfited. This episode was used in nineteenth century America as a Biblical justification for slavery. 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.