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. On January 19, 1830, Hayne attacked the Foot Resolution and labeled the Northeasterners as selfish and unprincipled for their support of protectionism and conservative land policies. Drama, suspense, it's all there. . . 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 . 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. . Hayne quotes from the Virginia Resolution (1798), authored by Thomas Jefferson, to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). All of these contentious topics were touched upon in Webster and Hayne's nine day long debate. . . 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. . Debate on the Constitutionality of the Mexican War, Letters and Journals from the Oregon Trail. The debaters were Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. 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. 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. 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? He joined Hayne in using this opportunity to try to detach the West from the East, and restore the old cooperation of the West and the South against New England. . 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? . Webster-Hayne Debate. 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. It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. . For all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in anything said or intimated by me. In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? . He must cut it with his sword. Compare And Contrast The Tension Between North And South. The speech is also known for the line Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable, which would subsequently become the state motto of North Dakota, appearing on the state seal. The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions Add Song of the Spinners from the Lowell Offering. If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have war. Assuredly not. The debate itself, a nine-day long unplanned exchange between Senators Robert Y. Hayne and Daniel Webster, directly addressed the methods by which the federal government was generating revenue, namely through protective tariffs and the selling of federal lands in the newly acquired western territories. For Calhoun, see the Speech on Abolition Petitions and the Speech on the Oregon Bill. . we find the most opposite and irreconcilable opinions between the two parties which I have before described. Available in hard copy and for download. Enrolling in a course lets you earn progress by passing quizzes and exams. The growing support for nullification was quite obvious during the days of the Jackson Administration, as events such as the Webster-Hayne Debate, Tariff of 1832, Order of Nullification, and Worcester v. Georgia all made the tension grow between the North and the South. . And what has been the consequence? . foote wanted to stop surveying lands until they could sell the ones already looked at The measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. 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. a. an explanation of natural events that is well supported by scientific evidence b. a set of rules for ethical conduct during an experiment c. a statement that describes how natural events happen d. a possible answer to a scientific question . 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. I did not utter a single word, which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. The United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. Finally, sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the states will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the Constitution. It is the common pretense. . By means of missionaries and political tracts, the scheme was in a great measure successful. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Webster and the northern states saw the Constitution as binding the individual states together as a single union. She has a BA in political science. How do Webster and Hayne differ in regard to their understandings of the proper relationship among the several states and between the states and the national government? Hayne quotes from Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, December 26, 1825, https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-william-branch-giles/?_sft_document_author=thomas-jefferson. I shrink almost instinctively from a course, however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feelings, and sectional jealousies. 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. But his standpoint was purely local and sectional. . I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. Having thus distinctly stated the points in dispute between the gentleman and myself, I proceed to examine them. What followed, the Webster Hayne debate, was one of the most famous exchanges in Senate history. Well, it's important to remember that the nation was still young and much different than what we think of today. But the gentleman apprehends that this will make the Union a rope of sand. Sir, I have shown that it is a power indispensably necessary to the preservation of the constitutional rights of the states, and of the people. Rachel Venter is a recent graduate of Metropolitan State University of Denver. . 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. Nor shall I stop there. It was a great and salutary measure of prevention. 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. Broadside Advertisement for Runaway Slave, Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a Free-Soiler, Free & Slave-holding States and Territories. 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. 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? The Webster-Hayne debate laid out key issues faced by the Senate in the 1820s and 1830s. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the Supreme Law. . 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. Now, I wish to be informedhowthis state interference is to be put in practice, without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. 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. 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? The heated speeches were unplanned and stemmed from the debate over a resolution by Connecticut Senator Samuel A. Webster argued that the American people had created the Union to promote the good of the whole. . The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. He accused them of a desire to check the growth of the West in the interests of protection. 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. . 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." 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. . But it was the honor of a caste; and the struggling bread-winners of society, the great commonalty, he little studied or understood. . Perhaps a quotation from a speech in Parliament in 1803 of Lord Castlereagh, Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry (17691822) during a debate over the conduct of British officials in India. Get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons. 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. . 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. Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. Some of Webster's personal friends had felt nervous over what appeared to them too hasty a period for preparation. In this regard, Webster anticipated an argument that Abraham Lincoln made in his First Inaugural Address (1861). But, sir, we will pass over all this. . But the feeling is without all adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists wholly groundless. If they mean merely this, then, no doubt, the public lands as well as everything else in which we have a common interest, tends to consolidation; and to this species of consolidation every true American ought to be attached; it is neither more nor less than strengthening the Union itself. It is one from which we are not disposed to shrink, in whatever form or under whatever circumstances it may be pressed upon us. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of unplanned speeches in the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830 between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. 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. There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of the South. . This is the true constitutional consolidation. They attack nobody, and menace nobody. . Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 20, 1830. It laid the interdict against personal servitude, in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper, also, than all local constitutions. 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. Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason thus. . Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions | Overview, Impact & Significance, Public Speaking for Teachers: Professional Development, AEPA Earth Science (AZ045): Practice & Study Guide, ORELA Early Childhood Education: Practice & Study Guide, Praxis Middle School English Language Arts (5047) Prep, MTLE Physical Education: Practice & Study Guide, ILTS Mathematics (208): Test Practice and Study Guide, MTLE Earth & Space Science: Practice & Study Guide, AEPA Business Education (NT309): Help & Review, Counselor Preparation Comprehensive Examination (CPCE): Exam Prep & Study Guide, GACE Special Education Adapted Curriculum Test I (083) Prep, GACE Special Education Adapted Curriculum Test II (084) Prep, Create an account to start this course today. Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. Under that system, the legal actionthe application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. 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? 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. Our Core Document Collection allows students to read history in the words of those who made it. 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. 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.

Non Alcoholic Swamp Water Drink Recipe, Articles W