what idea was espoused with the webster hayne debates

Pet Banks History & Effects | What are Pet Banks? 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. These verses recount the first occurrence of slavery. 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. This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. I hold it to be a popular government, erected by the people; those who administer it responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be. I am opposed, therefore, in any shape, to all unnecessary extension of the powers, or the influence of the Legislature or Executive of the Union over the states, or the people of the states; and, most of all, I am opposed to those partial distributions of favors, whether by legislation or appropriation, which has a direct and powerful tendency to spread corruption through the land; to create an abject spirit of dependence; to sow the seeds of dissolution; to produce jealousy among the different portions of the Union, and finally to sap the very foundations of the government itself. 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. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. If these opinions be thought doubtful, they are, nevertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. Expert Answers. He must cut it with his sword. Connecticut and other northeastern states were worried about the pace of growth and wanted to slow this down. Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 26 and 27, 1830. Sir, the opinion which the honorable gentleman maintains, is a notion, founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this government, and of the foundation on which it stands. . I shrink almost instinctively from a course, however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feelings, and sectional jealousies. It develops the gentlemans whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. 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. Battle of Fort Sumter in the Civil War | Who Won the Battle of Fort Sumter? 1824 Presidential Election, Candidates & Significance | Who Won the Election of 1824? By means of missionaries and political tracts, the scheme was in a great measure successful. The significance of Daniel Webster's argument went far beyond the immediate proposal at hand. A four-speech debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina, in January 1830. The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. The Webster-Hayne debates began over one issue but quickly switched to another. . The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches delivered before the Senate in 1830. Let's start by looking at the United States around 1830. This was the tenor of Webster's speech, and nobly did the country respond to it. Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person. I regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest of evils, both moral and political. One of those was the Webster-Hayne debate, a series of unplanned speeches presented before the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830. But still, throughout American history, several debates have captured the nation's attention in a way that would make even Hollywood jealous. The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. . . Hayne entered the U.S. Senate in 1823 and soon became prominent as a spokesman for the South and for the . On this subject, as in all others, we ask nothing of our Northern brethren but to let us alone; leave us to the undisturbed management of our domestic concerns, and the direction of our own industry, and we will ask no more. The people had had quite enough of that kind of government, under the Confederacy. An accomplished politician, Hayne was an eloquent orator who enthralled his audiences. The scene depicted in the painting is Webster concluding his debate with Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. 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. 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. . 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 real significance of this debate was in each man's interpretation of the United States Constitution. 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. . . God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. 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? The Webster-Hayne Debate between New Hampshire Senator Daniel Webster and South Carolina Senator Robert Young Hayne highlighted the sectional nature of the controversy. . They will also better understand the debate's political context. It was plenary then, and never having been surrendered, must be plenary now. What followed, the Webster Hayne debate, was one of the most famous exchanges in Senate history. Webster rose the next day in his seat to make his reply. Crittenden Compromise Plan & Reception | What was the Crittenden Compromise? 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. If slavery, as it now exists in this country, be an evil, we of the present day found it ready made to our hands. The Revelation on Celestial Marriage: Trouble Amon Hon. . . - 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. So what was this debate really about? An equally. The debate was important because it laid out the arguments in favor of nationalism in the face of growing sectionalism. . . Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives. . 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]. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. . Ostend Manifesto of 1854 Overview & Purpose | What was the Ostend Manifesto? . When my eyes shall be turned to behold, for the last time, the sun in Heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Excerpts from Ratification Documents of Virginia a Ratifying Conventions>New York Ratifying Convention. Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitution under which we sit. 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. .Readers will finish the book with a clear idea of the reason Webster's "Reply" became so influential in its own day. sir, this is but the old story. Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. Webster believed that the Constitution should be viewed as a binding document between the United States rather than an agreement between sovereign states. Webster replied to his speech the next day and left not a shred of the charge, baseless as it was. Would it be safe to confide such a treasure to the keeping of our national rulers? He accused them of a desire to check the growth of the West in the interests of protection. 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 United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. 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. 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. In 1830, the federal government collected few taxes and had two primary sources of revenue. By the time it ended nine days later, the focus had shifted to the vastly more cosmic concerns of slavery and the nature of the federal Union. . . Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. | 12 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. . . 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. An equally talented orator, Webster rose as the advocate of the North in the debate with his captivating reply to Hayne's initial argument. The honorable member himself is not, I trust, and can never be, one of these. But his calm, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. 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. Can any man believe, sir, that, if twenty-three millions per annum was now levied by direct taxation, or by an apportionment of the same among the states, instead of being raised by an indirect tax, of the severe effect of which few are aware, that the waste and extravagance, the unauthorized imposition of duties, and appropriations of money for unconstitutional objects, would have been tolerated for a single year? Sir, I 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? . I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. For Calhoun, see the Speech on Abolition Petitions and the Speech on the Oregon Bill. This debate exposed the critically different understandings of the nature of the American. 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. 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 . 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. . Well, let's look at the various parts. . It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. . 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.. . 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? . I deem far otherwise of the Union of the states; and so did the Framers of the Constitution themselves. The main issue of the Webster-Hayne Debate was the nature of the country that had been created by the Constitution. We look upon the states, not as separated, but as united. 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. And who are its enemies? 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. Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. 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. 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. 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. 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. . Sir, there does not exist, on the face of the whole earth, a population so poor, so wretched, so vile, so loathsome, so utterly destitute of all the comforts, conveniences, and decencies of life, as the unfortunate blacks of Philadelphia, and New York, and Boston. Between January and May 1830, twenty-one of the forty-eight senators delivered a staggering sixty-five speeches on the nature of the Union. . It was of a partizan and censorious character and drew nearly all the chief senators out. Why? 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. Finding our lot cast among a people, whom God had manifestly committed to our care, we did not sit down to speculate on abstract questions of theoretical liberty. Webster's description of the U.S. government as "made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people," was later paraphrased by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address in the words "government of the people, by the people, for the people." On that system, Ohio and Carolina are different governments, and different countries, connected here, it is true, by some slight and ill-defined bond of union, but, in all main respects, separate and diverse. 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? Sir, I deprecate and deplore this tone of thinking and acting. [was] fixed, forever, the character of the population in the vast regions Northwest of the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary servitude. A speech by Louisiana Senator Edward Livingston, however, neatly explains how American nationhood encompasses elements of both Webster and Hayne's ideas. Strange was it, however, that in heaping reproaches upon the Hartford Convention he did not mark how nearly its leaders had mapped out the same line of opposition to the national Government that his State now proposed to take, both relying upon the arguments of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 179899. If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have war. There was an end to all apprehension. We had no other general government. 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? Create your account. . Explore the Webster-Hayne debate. . 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. And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentlemans doctrine a little into its practical application. 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. A state will be restrained by a sincere love of the Union. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 27, 1830. . 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 . Edited and introduced by Jason W. Stevens. Webster-Hayne Debate book. . 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. On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than in Mexico. 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. 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. The measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. Our notion of things is entirely different. Debate on the Constitutionality of the Mexican War, Letters and Journals from the Oregon Trail. Eloquence threw open the portals of eternal day. 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." . . It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. MTEL Speech: Public Discourse & Debate in the U.S. To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. . . . Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as hardly a good. . But the feeling is without all adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists wholly groundless. In this moment in American history, the federal government had relatively little power. I'm imagining that your answer is probably 'I do.' Well, the southern states were infuriated. 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. . Connecticut's proposal was an attempt to slow the growth of the nation, control westward expansion, and bolster the federal government's revenue. . I will yield to no gentleman here in sincere attachment to the Union,but it is a Union founded on the Constitution, and not such a Union as that gentleman would give us, that is dear to my heart. 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? This is a delicate and sensitive point, in southern feeling; and of late years it has always been touched, and generally with effect, whenever the object has been to unite the whole South against northern men, or northern measures. The people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you Speech on Assuming Office of the President. But to remove all doubt it is expressly declared, by the 10th article of the amendment of the Constitution, that the powers not delegated to the states, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.. Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. Now that was a good debate! 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. The gentleman takes alarm at the sound. . . There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of the South. But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. . . The debates between daniel webster of massachusetts and robert hayne of south carolina gave. . 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. Tariff of Abominations of 1828 | What was the Significance of the Tariff of Abominations? If this is to become one great consolidated government, swallowing up the rights of the states, and the liberties of the citizen, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman, and beggared yeomanry,[8] the Union will not be worth preserving. . I have but one word more to add. 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. 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? 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. The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions Add Song of the Spinners from the Lowell Offering. New England, the Union, and the Constitution in its integrity, all were triumphantly vindicated. . The arena selected for a first impression was the Senate, where the arch-heretic himself presided and guided the onset with his eye. Wilmot Proviso of 1846: Overview & Significance | What was the Wilmot Proviso? He had allowed himself but a single night from eve to morn to prepare for a critical and crowning occasion. 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. Available in hard copy and for download. State governments were in control of their own affairs and expected little intervention from the federal government. 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. 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. It is only by a strict adherence to the limitations imposed by the Constitution on the federal government, that this system works well, and can answer the great ends for which it was instituted.