. What a commentary on the wisdom, justice, and humanity, of the Southern slave owner is presented by the example of certain benevolent associations and charitable individuals elsewhere. . Webster and the northern states saw the Constitution as binding the individual states together as a single union. 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. To them, this was a scheme to give the federal government more control over the cost of land by creating a scarcity. . It was a great and salutary measure of prevention. It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to bear up any other than free men. Understand the 1830 debate's significance through an overview of issues of the Constitution, the Union, and state sovereignty. Webster argued that the American people had created the Union to promote the good of the whole. 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. . . An accomplished politician, Hayne was an eloquent orator who enthralled his audiences. . This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. 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. . This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government, and the source of its power. 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. 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. 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. All regulated governments, all free governments, have been broken up by similar disinterested and well-disposed interference! . . foote wanted to stop surveying lands until they could sell the ones already looked at . Noah grew a vineyard, got drunk on wine and lay naked. Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the constitutional question. 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. 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. But I do not understand the doctrine now contended for to be that which, for the sake of distinctness, we may call the right of revolution. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the Supreme Law. 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. Historians love a good debate. 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. But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. . 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. A state will be restrained by a sincere love of the Union. . The discussion took a wide range, going back to topics that had agitated the country before the Constitution was formed. 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 Commercial Greatness of the United States, Special Message to Congress (Tyler Doctrine), Estranged Labour and The Communist Manifesto, State of the Union Address Part II (1848). | 12 . Sir, I have had some opportunities of making comparisons between the condition of the free Negroes of the North and the slaves of the South, and the comparison has left not only an indelible impression of the superior advantages of the latter, but has gone far to reconcile me to slavery itself. 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? And, therefore, I cannot but feel regret at the expression of such opinions as the gentleman has avowed; because I think their obvious tendency is to weaken the bond of our connection. Edited and introduced by Jason W. Stevens. It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. . . 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. Rush-Bagot Treaty Structure & Effects | What was the Rush-Bagot Agreement? . The Webster Hayne Debate. The states cannot now make war; they cannot contract alliances; they cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin money. 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 . . We resolved to make the best of the situation in which Providence had placed us, and to fulfil the high trust which had developed upon us as the owners of slaves, in the only way in which such a trust could be fulfilled, without spreading misery and ruin throughout the land. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Senator Daniel Webster] has gone out of his way to pass a high eulogium on the state of Ohio. In this moment in American history, the federal government had relatively little power. There was no winner or loser in the Webster-Hayne debate. Well, let's look at the various parts. . 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. . Daniel Webster argued against nullification (the idea that states could disobey federal laws) arguing in favor of a strong federal government which would bind the states together under the Constitution. They had burst forth from arguments about a decision by Connecticut Senator Samuel Foote. But, according to the gentlemans reading, the object of the Constitution was to consolidate the government, and the means would seem to be, the promotion of injustice, causing domestic discord, and depriving the states and the people of the blessings of liberty forever. . 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. The United States, under the Constitution and federal government, was a single, unified nation, not a coalition of sovereign states. 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. 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. Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives. Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitution under which we sit. . New England, the Union, and the Constitution in its integrity, all were triumphantly vindicated. I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. . I understand him to insist, that if the exigency of the case, in the opinion of any state government, require it, such state government may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the general government, which it deems plainly and palpably unconstitutional. . 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. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. The debaters were Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? Webster rose the next day in his seat to make his reply. . . 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." The arena selected for a first impression was the Senate, where the arch-heretic himself presided and guided the onset with his eye. In contrasting the state of Ohio with Kentucky, for the purpose of pointing out the superiority of the former, and of attributing that superiority to the existence of slavery, in the one state, and its absence in the other, I thought I could discern the very spirit of the Missouri question[1] intruded into this debate, for objects best known to the gentleman himself. A four-speech debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina, in January 1830. Hayne, South Carolina's foremost Senator, was the chosen champion; and the cause of his State, both in its right and wrong sides, could have found no abler exponent while [Vice President] Calhoun's official station kept him from the floor. The tendency of all these ideas and sentiments is obviously to bring the Union into discussion, as a mere question of present and temporary expediency; nothing more than a mere matter of profit and loss. Foote Idea To Limit The Sale Of Public Lands In The West To New Settlers. But his calm, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. 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. . Correspondence Between Anthony Butler and Presiden State of the Union Address Part II (1846). 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. . I understand him to maintain, that the ultimate power of judging of the constitutional extent of its own authority, is not lodged exclusively in the general government, or any branch of it; but that, on the contrary, the states may lawfully decide for themselves, and each state for itself, whether, in a given case, the act of the general government transcends its power. 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? Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. And who are its enemies? Sir, I deprecate and deplore this tone of thinking and acting. . Webster-Hayne Debate book. I love a good debate. 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. Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. My life upon it, sir, they would not. 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. . In January 1830, a debate on the nature of sovereignty in the America. . Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 19, 1830. .Readers will finish the book with a clear idea of the reason Webster's "Reply" became so influential in its own day. After his term as a senator, he served as the Governor of South Carolina. He entered the Senate on that memorable day with a slow and stately step and took his seat as though unconscious of the loud buzz of expectant interest with which the crowded auditory greeted his appearance. 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 the course of my former remarks, I took occasion to deprecate, as one of the greatest of evils, the consolidation of this government. Regional Conflict in America: Debate Over States' Rights. . . All of these ideas, however, are only parts of the main point. The measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. In this regard, Webster anticipated an argument that Abraham Lincoln made in his First Inaugural Address (1861). . The debates between daniel webster of massachusetts and robert hayne of south carolina gave. The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions Add Song of the Spinners from the Lowell Offering. 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. I propose to consider it, and to compare it with the Constitution. . . . . 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. 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. These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened . This is the sum of what I understand from him, to be the South Carolina doctrine; and the doctrine which he maintains. 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. . 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. . To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. But, sir, the gentleman is mistaken. 1824 Presidential Election, Candidates & Significance | Who Won the Election of 1824? 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. Go to these cities now, and ask the question. . 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. 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. 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. 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 . . MTEL Speech: Public Discourse & Debate in the U.S. 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. Enrolling in a course lets you earn progress by passing quizzes and exams. This will co-operate with the feelings of patriotism to induce a state to avoid any measures calculated to endanger that connection. Daniel Webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the danger of the states' rights doctrine, which permitted each State to decide for itself which laws were unconstitutional, claiming it would lead to civil war. 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]. It is to state, and to defend, what I conceive to be the true principles of the Constitution under which we are here assembled. Daniel webster (ma) and sen. Hayne of . 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.. The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have war. Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . 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. 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. If slavery, as it now exists in this country, be an evil, we of the present day found it ready made to our hands. . . In 1830, the federal government collected few taxes and had two primary sources of revenue. 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? One of those was the Webster-Hayne debate, a series of unplanned speeches presented before the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830. [was] fixed, forever, the character of the population in the vast regions Northwest of the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary servitude. 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. [2] We deal in no abstractions. We do not impose geographical limits to our patriotic feeling or regard; we do not follow rivers and mountains, and lines of latitude, to find boundaries, beyond which public improvements do not benefit us. 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. lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. . Battle of Fort Sumter in the Civil War | Who Won the Battle of Fort Sumter? Ah! Several state governments or courts, some in the north, had espoused the idea of nullification prior to 1828. . . The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches delivered before the Senate in 1830. The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States H What Are the Colored People Doing for Themselves? 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." Daniel Webster stood as a ready and formidable opponent from the north who, at different stages in his career, represented both the states of New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The faction of voters in the North were against slavery and feared it spreading into new territory. . Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 26 and 27, 1830. 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.
Loadrunner Integration With Influxdb, Articles W