The debate was important because it laid out the arguments in favor of nationalism in the face of growing sectionalism. Daniel webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the. 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. They had burst forth from arguments about a decision by Connecticut Senator Samuel Foote. 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. 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. . Are we in that condition still? . . So what was this debate really about? . .
Which of the following is the best definition of a hypothesis? Some of Webster's personal friends had felt nervous over what appeared to them too hasty a period for preparation. On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than in Mexico. . 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. 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? . If this Constitution, sir, be the creature of state Legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the volitions of its creators. 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 Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the states, as states, were parties to it. By the time it ended nine days later, the focus had shifted to the vastly more cosmic concerns of slavery and the nature of the federal Union. The next day, however, Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster rose with his reply, and the northern states knew they had found their champion. 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. Understand the 1830 debate's significance through an overview of issues of the Constitution, the Union, and state sovereignty. 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 discussion took a wide range, going back to topics that had agitated the country before the Constitution was formed. Webster and the North treated it as binding the states together as a single union. What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? . . I deem far otherwise of the Union of the states; and so did the Framers of the Constitution themselves. The Revelation on Celestial Marriage: Trouble Amon Hon. Webster believed that the Constitution should be viewed as a binding document between the United States rather than an agreement between sovereign states. What was going on? 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. The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. 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. . . . Let us look at the historical facts. 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. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches presented to the United States Senate by senators Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as hardly a good.
The Webster-Hayne Debates | Teaching American History . . This, sir, is General Washingtons consolidation. . . And who are its enemies? But, sir, we will pass over all this. 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. . 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. It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. 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. . . Noah grew a vineyard, got drunk on wine and lay naked. We will not look back to inquire whether our fathers were guiltless in introducing slaves into this country. . Webster and the northern states saw the Constitution as binding the individual states together as a single union. . It was not a Union to be torn up without bloodshed; for nerves and arteries were interwoven with its roots and tendrils, sustaining the lives and interests of twelve million inhabitants. 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. 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.
Daniel Webster - Facts, Career & Legacy - HISTORY . I'm imagining that your answer is probably 'I do.' At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. The debates between daniel webster of massachusetts and robert hayne of south carolina gave. Well, let's look at the various parts. 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. Assuredly not. Judiciary Act of 1801 | Overview, History & Significance, General Ulysses S. Grant Takes Charge: His Strategic Plan for Ending the War. I love a good debate. 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. 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? The senator from Massachusetts, in denouncing what he is pleased to call the Carolina doctrine,[5] has attempted to throw ridicule upon the idea that a state has any constitutional remedy by the exercise of its sovereign authority against a gross, palpable, and deliberate violation of the Constitution. He called it an idle or a ridiculous notion, or something to that effect; and added, that it would make the Union a mere rope of sand. 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. 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. 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 . . 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. Web hardcover $30.00 paperback $17.00 kindle nook book ibook. Address to the Slaves of the United States. I propose to consider it, and to compare it with the Constitution. Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . Tariff of Abominations of 1828 | What was the Significance of the Tariff of Abominations? The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions Add Song of the Spinners from the Lowell Offering.
Competing Conceptions of Union and Ordered Liberty in The Webster-Hayne 136 lessons We, sir, who oppose the Carolina doctrine, do not deny that the people may, if they choose, throw off any government, when it becomes oppressive and intolerable, and erect a better in its stead. 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. An accomplished politician, Hayne was an eloquent orator who enthralled his audiences. Webster's argument that the constitution should stand as a powerful uniting force between the states rather than a treaty between sovereign states held as a key concept in America's ideas about the federal government. What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? Can any man believe, sir, that, if twenty-three millions per annum was now levied by direct taxation, or by an apportionment of the same among the states, instead of being raised by an indirect tax, of the severe effect of which few are aware, that the waste and extravagance, the unauthorized imposition of duties, and appropriations of money for unconstitutional objects, would have been tolerated for a single year? Sir, an immense national treasury would be a fund for corruption. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll hopefully stay awake until the end of the lesson. 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. I shrink almost instinctively from a course, however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feelings, and sectional jealousies. . . The Northwest Ordinance. Hayne was a great orator, filled with fiery passion and eloquent prose. . Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you 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. 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 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? This would have been the case even if no positive provision to that effect had been inserted in that instrument. Well, it's important to remember that the nation was still young and much different than what we think of today. 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. 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. 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. Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason thus.
Webster-Hayne Debate - U-S-History An equally talented orator, Webster rose as the advocate of the North in the debate with his captivating reply to Hayne's initial argument. There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of the South.
Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. 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.. I feel like its a lifeline. . 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. If I had, sir, the powers of a magician, and could, by a wave of my hand, convert this capital into gold for such a purpose, I would not do it. Well, the southern states were infuriated. Nor shall I stop there. 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. It was plenary then, and never having been surrendered, must be plenary now. Several state governments or courts, some in the north, had espoused the idea of nullification prior to 1828. Their own power over their own instrument remains. As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 88,000 . Webster argued that the American people had created the Union to promote the good of the whole. Webster was eloquent, he was educated, he was witty, and he was a staunch defender of American liberty. That led into a debate on the economy, in which Webster attacked the institution of slavery and Hayne labeled the policy of protectionist tariffs as the consolidation of a strong central government, which he called the greatest of evils. They tell us, in the letter submitting the Constitution to the consideration of the country, that, in all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true Americanthe consolidation of our Unionin which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety; perhaps our national existence. The Webster-Hayne debates began over one issue but quickly switched to another. . This was the tenor of Webster's speech, and nobly did the country respond to it. Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) | Case, Significance & Summary. 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. The heated speeches were unplanned and stemmed from the debate over a resolution by Connecticut Senator Samuel A. It is only regarded as a possible means of good; or on the other hand, as a possible means of evil. . . Hayne launched his confident javelin at the New England States. Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 20, 1830. 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. Rather, the debate eloquently captured the ideas and ideals of Northern and Southern representatives of the time, highlighting and summarizing the major issues of governance of the era.
Winners and Losers History's Famous Debates - Medium Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Breckinridge Facti (Southern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. 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? When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it.
The Webster-Hayne Debate - 1830 - YouTube Rush-Bagot Treaty Structure & Effects | What was the Rush-Bagot Agreement? The honorable member himself is not, I trust, and can never be, one of these. . 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. 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. . He had allowed himself but a single night from eve to morn to prepare for a critical and crowning occasion. copyright 2003-2023 Study.com. Ah! 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. succeed. . Northern states intended to strengthen the federal government, binding the states in the union under one supreme law, and eradicating the use of slave labor in the rapidly growing nation. 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. 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.
Webster-Hayne debate - Wikipedia The specific issue that sparked the Webster-Hayne debate was a proposal by the state of Connecticut which said that the federal government should halt its surveying of land west of the Mississippi and focus on selling the land it had already surveyed to private citizens. 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. . Sir, there does not exist, on the face of the whole earth, a population so poor, so wretched, so vile, so loathsome, so utterly destitute of all the comforts, conveniences, and decencies of life, as the unfortunate blacks of Philadelphia, and New York, and Boston. 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.