. Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitution under which we sit. Rush-Bagot Treaty Structure & Effects | What was the Rush-Bagot Agreement? [2] We deal in no abstractions. . 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. I understand the gentleman to maintain, that, without revolution, without civil commotion, without rebellion, a remedy for supposed abuse and transgression of the powers of the general government lies in a direct appeal to the interference of the state governments. This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government, and the source of its power. Hayne maintained that the states retained the authority to nullify federal law, Webster that federal law expressed the will of the American people and could not be nullified by a minority of the people in a state. . Webster's second reply to Hayne, in January 1830, became a famous defense of the federal union: "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable." Just beneath the surface of this debate lay the elements of the developing sectional crisis between North and South. 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. 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.. The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. 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. Thousands of these deluded victims of fanaticism were seduced into the enjoyment of freedom in our Northern cities. One of those was the Webster-Hayne debate, a series of unplanned speeches presented before the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830. sir, this is but the old story. It is not the creature of state Legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on state sovereignties. . The measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. It is, sir, the peoples Constitution, the peoples government; made for the people; made by the people; and answerable to the people. It develops the gentlemans whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches delivered before the Senate in 1830. We met it as a practical question of obligation and duty. Create your account. Webster's articulation of the concept of the Union went on to shape American attitudes about the federal government. . Well, it's important to remember that the nation was still young and much different than what we think of today. . To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. 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 . . She has worked as a university writing consultant for over three years. 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? Hayne and the South saw it as basically a treaty between sovereign states. 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. What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? Most assuredly, I need not say I differ with him, altogether and most widely, on that point. 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. . . Webster stood in favor of Connecticut's proposal that the federal government should stop surveying western land and sell the land it had already surveyed to boost it's revenue and strengthen it's authority. 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. Debate on the Constitutionality of the Mexican War, Letters and Journals from the Oregon Trail. 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 great debate, which culminated in Hayne's encounter with Webster, came about in a somewhat casual way. 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? 1824 Presidential Election, Candidates & Significance | Who Won the Election of 1824? T he Zionist-evangelical back story goes back several decades, with 90-year-old televangelist Pat Robertson being a prime case study.. One of the more notable "coincidences" or anomalies Winter Watch brings to your attention is the image of Robertson on the cover of Time magazine in 1986 back before the public was red pilled by the Internet -as the pastor posed with a gesture called . An error occurred trying to load this video. 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. Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. 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? 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. . As sovereign states, each state could individually interpret the Constitution and even leave the Union altogether. 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. . Well, the southern states were infuriated. . I regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest of evils, both moral and political. Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person. . It laid the interdict against personal servitude, in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper, also, than all local constitutions. Foote Idea To Limit The Sale Of Public Lands In The West To New Settlers. I propose to consider it, and to compare it with the Constitution. Judiciary Act of 1801 | Overview, History & Significance, General Ulysses S. Grant Takes Charge: His Strategic Plan for Ending the War. 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. . Mr. Webster arose, and, in conclusion, said: A few words, Mr. President, on this constitutional argument, which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstruct. I admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution, and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to, when a revolution is to be justified. Now that was a good debate! 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 would strengthen the ties that hold us together. 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 . The debates between daniel webster of massachusetts and robert hayne of south carolina gave. Then he began his speech, his words flowing on so completely at command that a fellow senator who heard him likened his elocution to the steady flow of molten gold. . So soon as the cessions were obtained, it became necessary to make provision for the government and disposition of the territory . And who are its enemies? 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. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the Supreme Law. 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. . Tariff of 1816 History & Significance | What was the Tariff of 1816? 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. The arena selected for a first impression was the Senate, where the arch-heretic himself presided and guided the onset with his eye. 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? 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. . 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. This is the true constitutional consolidation. 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. 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? Hayne was a great orator, filled with fiery passion and eloquent prose. . 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. What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion. This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. After his term as a senator, he served as the Governor of South Carolina. 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. . Nor shall I stop there. Create your account, 15 chapters | Speech on Assuming Office of the President. [O]pinions were expressed yesterday on the general subject of the public lands, and on some other subjects, by the gentleman from South Carolina [Senator Robert Hayne], so widely different from my own, that I am not willing to let the occasion pass without some reply. . If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have war. If these opinions be thought doubtful, they are, nevertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. . Be this as it may, Hayne was a ready and copious orator, a highly-educated lawyer, a man of varied accomplishments, shining as a writer, speaker, and counselor, equally qualified to draw up a bill or to advocate it, quick to memories, well fortified by wealth and marriage connections, dignified, never vulgar nor unmindful of the feelings of those with whom he mingled, Hayne moved in an atmosphere where lofty and chivalrous honor was the ruling sentiment. "The most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress" may have been Webster's 1830 "Second Reply to Hayne", a South Carolina Senator who had echoed John C. Calhoun's case for state's rights.. . It cannot be doubted, and is not denied, that before the formation of the constitution, each state was an independent sovereignty, possessing all the rights and powers appertaining to independent nations; nor can it be denied that, after the Constitution was formed, they remained equally sovereign and independent, as to all powers, not expressly delegated to the federal government. 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. 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. Even the revenue system of this country, by which the whole of our pecuniary resources are derived from indirect taxation, from duties upon imports, has done much to weaken the responsibility of our federal rulers to the people, and has made them, in some measure, careless of their rights, and regardless of the high trust committed to their care. This is the sense in which the Framers of the Constitution use the word consolidation; and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. 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. Ah! State governments were in control of their own affairs and expected little intervention from the federal government. I love a good debate. 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? Webster-Hayne Debate. . Foot calling for the temporary suspension of further land surveying until land already on the market was sold (to effectively stop the introduction of new lands onto the market). . 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. Broadside Advertisement for Runaway Slave, Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a Free-Soiler, Free & Slave-holding States and Territories. . What can I say? Connecticut and other northeastern states were worried about the pace of growth and wanted to slow this down. The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. So what was this debate really about? Enrolling in a course lets you earn progress by passing quizzes and exams. Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. Drama, suspense, it's all there. Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. I did not utter a single word, which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. Consolidation!that perpetual cry, both of terror and delusionconsolidation! Edited and introduced by Jason W. Stevens. . I know that there are some persons in the part of the country from which the honorable member comes, who habitually speak of the Union in terms of indifference, or even of disparagement. 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. . They will also better understand the debate's political context. If an inquiry should ever be instituted in these matters, however, it will be found that the profits of the slave trade were not confined to the South. I will struggle while I have life, for our altars and our fire sides, and if God gives me strength, I will drive back the invader discomfited. . 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.Readers will finish the book with a clear idea of the reason Webster's "Reply" became so influential in its own day. . Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. In the course of my former remarks, I took occasion to deprecate, as one of the greatest of evils, the consolidation of this government. . 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.. Webster rose the next day in his seat to make his reply. . Historians love a good debate. Battle of Fort Sumter in the Civil War | Who Won the Battle of Fort Sumter? Their own power over their own instrument remains. . This statement, though strong, is no stronger than the strictest truth will warrant. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you Benton was rising in renown as the advocate not only of Western settlers but of a new theory that the public lands should be given away instead of sold to them. God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise. 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.. More specifically, some of the issues facing Congress during this period included: Robert Y. Hayne served as Senator of South Carolina from 1823 to 1832. He must cut it with his sword. . This government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. 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. Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. Web hardcover $30.00 paperback $17.00 kindle nook book ibook. 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. Ham, one of Noahs sons, saw him uncovered, for which Noah cursed him by making Hams son, Canaan, a slave to Ham's brothers. In many respects, his speech betrays the mentality of Massachusetts conservatives seeking to regain national leadership and advance their particular ideas about the nation. . . Who doesn't? . . . The Union to be preserved, while it suits local and temporary purposes to preserve it; and to be sundered whenever it shall be found to thwart such purposes. . Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 19, 1830. . South Carolinas Declaration of the Causes of Secession (1860), Jefferson Daviss Inaugural Address (1861), Documents in Detail: The Webster-Hayne Debates, Remarks in Congress on the Tariff of Abominations, Check out our collection of primary source readers. Besides that, however, the federal government was still figuring out its role in American society. . Hayne entered the U.S. Senate in 1823 and soon became prominent as a spokesman for the South and for the . Let's start by looking at the United States around 1830. . Explore the Webster-Hayne debate. What followed, the Webster Hayne debate, was one of the most famous exchanges in Senate history. Now, have they given away that right, or agreed to limit or restrict it in any respect? 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. 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. [Its leader] would have a knot before him, which he could not untie. Daniel webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the. 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. But the feeling is without all adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists wholly groundless. . 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. Sheidley, Harlow W. "The Wester-Hayne Debate: Recasting New England's Sectionalism", Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 179899, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WebsterHayne_debate&oldid=1135315190, This page was last edited on 23 January 2023, at 22:54. 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? This would have been the case even if no positive provision to that effect had been inserted in that instrument. Correspondence Between Anthony Butler and Presiden State of the Union Address Part II (1846). It is only by a strict adherence to the limitations imposed by the Constitution on the federal government, that this system works well, and can answer the great ends for which it was instituted. This will co-operate with the feelings of patriotism to induce a state to avoid any measures calculated to endanger that connection. . An undefinable dread now went abroad that men were planning against the peace of the nation, that the Union was in danger; and citizens looked more closely after its safety and welfare. It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to bear up any other than free men. . 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. . 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). In this regard, Webster anticipated an argument that Abraham Lincoln made in his First Inaugural Address (1861). We had no other general government. . The gentleman takes alarm at the sound. We see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow. . . . He accused them of a desire to check the growth of the West in the interests of protection. The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . - Women's Rights Facts & Significance, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points: Definition, Speech & Summary, Fireside Chats: Definition & Significance, JFK's New Frontier: Definition, Speech & Program. The Webster-Hayne debates began over one issue but quickly switched to another. Well, you're not alone. The theory that the states' may vote against unfair laws.