what idea was espoused with the webster hayne debates10 marca 2023
what idea was espoused with the webster hayne debates

. 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 . 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 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. I have but one word more to add. This means that South Carolina is essentially its own nation, Georgia is its own nation, and so on. But, sir, the task has been forced upon me, and I proceed right onward to the performance of my duty; be the consequences what they may, the responsibility is with those who have imposed upon me this necessity. All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. . Sir, an immense national treasury would be a fund for corruption. By establishing justice, promoting domestic tranquility, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. This is the true reading of the Constitution. All rights reserved. Available in hard copy and for download. Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. 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. Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as hardly a good. 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. Before his term as a U.S. senator, Hayne had served as a state senator, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, South Carolina's Speaker of the House, and Attorney General of South Carolina. 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. 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. . 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? . Webster-Hayne Debate 1830, an unplanned series of speeches in the Senate, during which Robert Hayne of South Carolina interpreted the Constitution as little more than a treaty between sovereign states, and Daniel Webster expressed the concept of the United States as one nation. Most are forgettable, to put it charitably. Compare And Contrast The Tension Between North And South. Well, the southern states were infuriated. There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of the South. During the course of the debates, the senators touched on pressing political issues of the daythe tariff, Western lands, internal improvementsbecause behind these and others were two very different understandings of the origin and nature of the American Union. That's what was happening out West. I shrink almost instinctively from a course, however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feelings, and sectional jealousies. Hayne began the debate by speaking out against a proposal by the northern states which suggested that the federal government should stop its surveyance of land west of the Mississippi and shift its focus to selling the land it had already surveyed. Webster-Hayne Debate book. It was of a partizan and censorious character and drew nearly all the chief senators out. But his standpoint was purely local and sectional. We look upon the states, not as separated, but as united. But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. . New England, the Union, and the Constitution in its integrity, all were triumphantly vindicated. If these opinions be thought doubtful, they are, nevertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. Judiciary Act of 1801 | Overview, History & Significance, General Ulysses S. Grant Takes Charge: His Strategic Plan for Ending the War. 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. 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. President John Quincy Adams and the Election of 1824. . When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. 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. Allow me to say, as a preliminary remark, that I call this the South Carolina doctrine, only because the gentleman himself has so denominated it. 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. 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. Gloomy and downcast of late, Massachusetts men walked the avenue as though the fife and drum were before them. I love a good debate. It is, sir, the peoples Constitution, the peoples government; made for the people; made by the people; and answerable to the people. Between January and May 1830, twenty-one of the forty-eight senators delivered a staggering sixty-five speeches on the nature of the Union. 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. Let's start by looking at the United States around 1830. . The people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. This episode was used in nineteenth century America as a Biblical justification for slavery. Senator Foote, of Connecticut, submitted a proposition inquiring into the expediency of limiting the sales of public lands to those already in the market. During his first years in Congress, Webster railed against President James Madison 's war policies, invoking a states' rights argument to oppose a conscription bill that went down to defeat.. . 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? And what has been the consequence? . The idea that a state could nullify a federal law, associated with South Carolina, especially after the publication of John C. Calhouns South Carolina Exposition and Protest (1828) in response to the tariff passed in that year. 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? . We could not send them back to the shores from whence their fathers had been taken; their numbers forbade the thought, even if we did not know that their condition here is infinitely preferable to what it possibly could be among the barren sands and savage tribes of Africa; and it was wholly irreconcilable with all our notions of humanity to tear asunder the tender ties which they had formed among us, to gratify the feelings of a false philanthropy. 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. . I am a Unionist, and in this sense a national Republican. 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 United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. But his calm, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. Ostend Manifesto of 1854 Overview & Purpose | What was the Ostend Manifesto? 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. we find the most opposite and irreconcilable opinions between the two parties which I have before described. What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion. . 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. What was going on? 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? It develops the gentlemans whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. Under that system, the legal actionthe application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. Connecticut and other northeastern states were worried about the pace of growth and wanted to slow this down. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Senator Daniel Webster] has gone out of his way to pass a high eulogium on the state of Ohio. 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. An equally. 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. I maintain that, from the day of the cession of the territories by the states to Congress, no portion of the country has acted, either with more liberality or more intelligence, on the subject of the Western lands in the new states, than New England. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 27, 1830. . Broadside Advertisement for Runaway Slave, Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a Free-Soiler, Free & Slave-holding States and Territories. The Senate debates between Whig Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Democrat Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina in January 1830 started out as a disagreement over the sale of Western lands and turned into one of the most famous verbal contests in American history. . The main issue of the Webster-Hayne Debate was the nature of the country that had been created by the Constitution. 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? 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. One was through protective tariffs, high taxes on imports and exports. . Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. 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. . . 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. . Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason thus. . The Hayne-Webster Debate was an unplanned series of speeches in the Senate, during which Robert Hayne of South Carolina interpreted the Constitution as little more than a treaty between sovereign states, and Daniel Webster expressed the concept of the United States as one nation. 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. 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.. . 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. 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. 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. At the time of the debate, Webster was serving his term as Senator of Massachusetts. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the states, as states, were parties to it. While the debaters argued about slavery, the economy, protection tariffs, and western land, the real implication was the meaning of the United States Constitution. 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. 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 see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow. . Hayne's few but zealous partizans shielded him still, and South Carolina spoke with pride of him. He remained a Southern Unionist through his long public career and a good type of the growing class of statesman devoted to slave interests who loved the Union as it was and doted upon its compromises. 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. . . Then, in January of 1830, a senator from Connecticut introduced a proposal to the Senate stating that the federal government should stop surveying the lands west of the Mississippi River. He rose, the image of conscious mastery, after the dull preliminary business of the day was dispatched, and with a happy figurative allusion to the tossed mariner, as he called for a reading of the resolution from which the debate had so far drifted, lifted his audience at once to his level. 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.. 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. The gentleman has made an eloquent appeal to our hearts in favor of union. . 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. To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. . The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the Supreme Law. 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. Several state governments or courts, some in the north, had espoused the idea of nullification prior to 1828. Ham, one of Noahs sons, saw him uncovered, for which Noah cursed him by making Hams son, Canaan, a slave to Ham's brothers. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. States' rights (South) vs. nationalism (North). The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . He must say to his followers [members of the state militia], defend yourselves with your bayonets; and this is warcivil war. They switched from a. the tariff of 1828 to national power . Connecticut's proposal was an attempt to slow the growth of the nation, control westward expansion, and bolster the federal government's revenue. Our notion of things is entirely different. What can I say? I propose to consider it, and to compare it with the Constitution. . 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. As sovereign states, each state could individually interpret the Constitution and even leave the Union altogether. 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. 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? 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? Now that was a good debate! Hayne launched his confident javelin at the New England States. Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? Hayne was a great orator, filled with fiery passion and eloquent prose. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. Who, then, Mr. President, are the true friends of the Union? . If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have war. It was motivated by a dispute over the continued sale of western lands, an important source of revenue for the federal government. . . He was a lawyer turned congressional representative who eventually worked his way to the office of U.S. Secretary of State. 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. . 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. copyright 2003-2023 Study.com. 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? This was the tenor of Webster's speech, and nobly did the country respond to it. . Webster was eloquent, he was educated, he was witty, and he was a staunch defender of American liberty. Regional Conflict in America: Debate Over States' Rights. The real significance of this debate was in each man's interpretation of the United States Constitution. . . To them, this was a scheme to give the federal government more control over the cost of land by creating a scarcity. What interest, asks he, has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio? Sir, this very question is full of significance. Sir, I deprecate and deplore this tone of thinking and acting. . 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. | 12 God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. . 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? . . Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 25, 1830. . For Calhoun, see the Speech on Abolition Petitions and the Speech on the Oregon Bill. Those who are in favor of consolidation; who are constantly stealing power from the states and adding strength to the federal government; who, assuming an unwarrantable jurisdiction over the states and the people, undertake to regulate the whole industry and capital of the country. Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado. 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." 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. The following states came from the territory north and west of the Ohio river: Ohio (1803), Indiana (1816), Illinois (1818), Michigan (1837), Wisconsin (1848) and Minnesota (1858). See Genesis 9:2027. - Women's Rights Facts & Significance, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points: Definition, Speech & Summary, Fireside Chats: Definition & Significance, JFK's New Frontier: Definition, Speech & Program. Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person. Prejudice Not Natural: The American Colonization "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July? . . An equally talented orator, Webster rose as the advocate of the North in the debate with his captivating reply to Hayne's initial argument. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. 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. . By means of missionaries and political tracts, the scheme was in a great measure successful. The WebsterHayne debate was a debate in the United States between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina that took place on January 1927, 1830 on the topic of protectionist tariffs. But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the states. 1824 Presidential Election, Candidates & Significance | Who Won the Election of 1824? . lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. 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. . For the next several days, the men traded speeches which contemporaries of the time described as the greatest orations ever delivered in the Senate. Sir, all our difficulties on this subject have arisen from interference from abroad, which has disturbed, and may again disturb, our domestic tranquility, just so far as to bring down punishment upon the heads of the unfortunate victims of a fanatical and mistaken humanity. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. Explore the Webster-Hayne 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. The debate was on. 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. . This is the sense in which the Framers of the Constitution use the word consolidation; and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. 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. So what was this debate really about? . . 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. Correspondence Between Anthony Butler and Presiden State of the Union Address Part II (1846). We had no other general government. Foote Idea To Limit The Sale Of Public Lands In The West To New Settlers. . 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. Famous Speeches by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. MTEL Speech: Ethical & Legal Communications, MTEL Speech: Delivering Effective Speeches, MTEL Speech: Using Communication Aids for Speeches, NY Regents Exam - US History and Government: Tutoring Solution, Business 104: Information Systems and Computer Applications, GED Math: Quantitative, Arithmetic & Algebraic Problem Solving, GED Social Studies: Civics & Government, US History, Economics, Geography & World, CSET Foundational-Level General Science (215) Prep, CSET English Subtests I & III (105 & 107): Practice & Study Guide, Managing Risk to Enhance & Maintain Your Health, Types of Healthcare Professionals & Delivery Systems, Consumer Health: Laws, Regulations & Agencies, The Role of School Health Advisory Councils in Texas, Teaching Sensitive or Controversial Health Issues, Calculating the Square Root of 27: How-To & Steps, Linear Transformations: Properties & Examples, Chemical Safety: Preparation, Use, Storage, and Disposal, Spectrophotometers: Definition, Uses, and Parts, What is an Autoclave? Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. 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 .

Chivos En Venta Cerca De Mi, Tiendas De Utensilios De Cocina En Estados Unidos, Gato Negro Con Blanco Significado Espiritual, Articles W