Between January and May 1830, twenty-one of the forty-eight senators delivered a staggering sixty-five speeches on the nature of the Union. . . . Webster rose the next day in his seat to make his reply. The debate was on. I love a good debate. Webster's "Second Reply to Hayne" was generally regarded as "the most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress."[1]. The Constitutional Convention: The Great Compromise, The Webster-Hayne Debate of 1830: Summary & Issues, The History of American Presidential Debates, Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening: Sermons & Biography, Who Was Susan B. Anthony? Well, let's look at the various parts. MTEL Speech: Public Discourse & Debate in the U.S. . Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason thus. 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. This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government, and the source of its power. . . Its like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. ", What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?. . . . . 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. Sir, an immense national treasury would be a fund for corruption. Create your account. This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. . 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. 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? Understand the 1830 debate's significance through an overview of issues of the Constitution, the Union, and state sovereignty. 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! . They will not destroy it, they will not impair itthey will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! The great debate, which culminated in Hayne's encounter with Webster, came about in a somewhat casual way. The measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. So what was this debate really about? 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? 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. In January 1830, a debate on the nature of sovereignty in the America. Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives. . The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches delivered before the Senate in 1830. 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? . 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. foote wanted to stop surveying lands until they could sell the ones already looked at The other way was through the sale of federally-owned land to private citizens. In our contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same country; states, united under the same general government, having interests, common, associated, intermingled. . Sir, I deprecate and deplore this tone of thinking and acting. . Well, the southern states were infuriated. 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. The taxes paid by foreign nations to export American cotton, for example, generated lots of money for the government. 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. Differences between Northern and Southern ideas of good governance, which eventually led to the American Civil War, were beginning to emerge. Our Core Document Collection allows students to read history in the words of those who made it. 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. There was an end to all apprehension. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . Web hardcover $30.00 paperback $17.00 kindle nook book ibook. . It is only regarded as a possible means of good; or on the other hand, as a possible means of evil. I say, the right of a state to annul a law of Congress, cannot be maintained, but on the ground of the unalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. . "The most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress" may have been Webster's 1830 "Second Reply to Hayne", a South Carolina Senator who had echoed John C. Calhoun's case for state's rights.. . . The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States H What Are the Colored People Doing for Themselves? 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. New England, the Union, and the Constitution in its integrity, all were triumphantly vindicated. . And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentlemans doctrine a little into its practical application. Pet Banks History & Effects | What are Pet Banks? More specifically, some of the issues facing Congress during this period included: Robert Y. Hayne served as Senator of South Carolina from 1823 to 1832. The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. The significance of Daniel Webster's argument went far beyond the immediate proposal at hand. Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as hardly a good. . . . 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. . 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. 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. Robert Young Hayne, (born Nov. 10, 1791, Colleton District, S.C., U.S.died Sept. 24, 1839, Asheville, N.C.), American lawyer, political leader, and spokesman for the South, best-remembered for his debate with Daniel Webster (1830), in which he set forth a doctrine of nullification. Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado. 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. Available in hard copy and for download. This was the tenor of Webster's speech, and nobly did the country respond to it. Historians love a good debate. 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. This is the sense in which the Framers of the Constitution use the word consolidation; and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. We met it as a practical question of obligation and duty. . Let's start by looking at the United States around 1830. This government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. 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. . . Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. To them, this was a scheme to give the federal government more control over the cost of land by creating a scarcity. . They significantly declare, that it is time to calculate the value of the Union; and their aim seems to be to enumerate, and to magnify all the evils, real and imaginary, which the government under the Union produces. What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion. Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. It was plenary then, and never having been surrendered, must be plenary now. Senator Foote, of Connecticut, submitted a proposition inquiring into the expediency of limiting the sales of public lands to those already in the market. . Having thus distinctly stated the points in dispute between the gentleman and myself, I proceed to examine them. An accomplished politician, Hayne was an eloquent orator who enthralled his audiences. Webster's articulation of the concept of the Union went on to shape American attitudes about the federal government. They switched from a. the tariff of 1828 to national power . This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. We love to dwell on that union, and on the mutual happiness which it has so much promoted, and the common renown which it has so greatly contributed to acquire. Under that system, the legal actionthe application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. 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. At the time of the debate, Webster was serving his term as Senator of Massachusetts. . South Carolinas Declaration of the Causes of Sece Distribution of the Slave Population by State. This was the man to fire an aristocracy of fellow citizens ready to arm when their interests were in danger, and upon him, it devolved to advance the cause of South Carolina, break down the tariff, and fascinate the Union with the new rattlesnake theories. First, New England was vindicated. 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 was a great and salutary measure of prevention. 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. . 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? 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. 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. So soon as the cessions were obtained, it became necessary to make provision for the government and disposition of the territory . . Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitution under which we sit. 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. Now that was a good debate! The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions Add Song of the Spinners from the Lowell Offering. Let us look at the historical facts. Why? Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. Now, have they given away that right, or agreed to limit or restrict it in any respect? See Genesis 9:2027. But still, throughout American history, several debates have captured the nation's attention in a way that would make even Hollywood jealous. 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? The United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. But it was the honor of a caste; and the struggling bread-winners of society, the great commonalty, he little studied or understood. 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. . 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. It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. 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. Their own power over their own instrument remains. 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. Tariff of Abominations of 1828 | What was the Significance of the Tariff of Abominations? At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. Crittenden Compromise Plan & Reception | What was the Crittenden Compromise? State governments were in control of their own affairs and expected little intervention from the federal government. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. 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. . 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? The Revelation on Celestial Marriage: Trouble Amon Hon. 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. 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? Compare And Contrast The Tension Between North And South. Eloquence threw open the portals of eternal day. . To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. . The next day, however, Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster rose with his reply, and the northern states knew they had found their champion. He must say to his followers [members of the state militia], defend yourselves with your bayonets; and this is warcivil war. 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? 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. It was of a partizan and censorious character and drew nearly all the chief senators out. I understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina to maintain, that it is a right of the state legislatures to interfere, whenever, in their judgment, this government transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of its laws. The debaters were Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. . The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the states, as states, were parties to it. . Rachel Venter is a recent graduate of Metropolitan State University of Denver. I feel like its a lifeline. All of these ideas, however, are only parts of the main point. Hayne's First Speech (January 19, 1830) Webster's First Reply to Hayne (January 20, 1830) Hayne's Second Speech (January 21, 1830) Webster's Second Reply to Hayne (January 26-27, 1830) This page was last edited on 13 June 2021, at . All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. His speech was indeed a powerful one of its eloquence and personality. The purpose of the Constitution was to permit cooperation between states under a shared political standard, but that meant that any growth in a federal government threatened the sovereignty of the states. . 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. 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. He was a lawyer turned congressional representative who eventually worked his way to the office of U.S. Secretary of State. I deem far otherwise of the Union of the states; and so did the Framers of the Constitution themselves. Create your account, 15 chapters | The debate was important because it laid out the arguments in favor of nationalism in the face of growing sectionalism. . . . The people of the United States cherish a devotion to the Union, so pure, so ardent, that nothing short of intolerable oppression, can ever tempt them to do anything that may possibly endanger it. When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the states, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. . I have but one word more to add. 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. 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. . 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? Prejudice Not Natural: The American Colonization "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July? But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. 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 theory that the states' may vote against unfair laws. Webster stood in favor of Connecticut's proposal that the federal government should stop surveying western land and sell the land it had already surveyed to boost it's revenue and strengthen it's authority. . All rights reserved. . 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. 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. 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 . I know, full well, that it is, and has been, the settled policy of some persons in the South, for years, to represent the people of the North as disposed to interfere with them, in their own exclusive and peculiar concerns. Debate on the Constitutionality of the Mexican War, Letters and Journals from the Oregon Trail. 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. When the honorable member rose, in his first speech, I paid him the respect of attentive listening; and when he sat down, though surprised, and I must say even astonished, at some of his opinions, nothing was farther from my intention than to commence any personal warfare: and through the whole of the few remarks I made in answer, I avoided, studiously and carefully, everything which I thought possible to be construed into disrespect. 1. emigration the movement of people from one place to another 2. immigration a situation in which resources are being used up at a faster rate than they can be replenished 3. migration the leaving of one's homeland to settle in a new place 4. overpopulation the movement of people to a new country 5. sustainable development a situation in which the birth rate is not sufficient to replace the . 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. . Webster replied to his speech the next day and left not a shred of the charge, baseless as it was. All of these contentious topics were touched upon in Webster and Hayne's nine day long debate. They will also better understand the debate's political context. The Webster-Hayne debate was a famous debate in the United States between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina.It happened on January 19-27, 1830. 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. 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. . President John Quincy Adams and the Election of 1824. 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.

Ramp School Of Ministry Alabama, Is Luke Glendening Married, Articles W