The debaters were Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 19, 1830. [Its leader] would have a knot before him, which he could not untie. Expert Answers. Get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons. . It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. Ostend Manifesto of 1854 Overview & Purpose | What was the Ostend Manifesto? MTEL Speech: Public Discourse & Debate in the U.S. It has always been regarded as a matter of domestic policy, left with the states themselves, and with which the federal government had nothing to do. He was dressed with scrupulous care, in a blue coat with metal buttons, a buff vest rounding over his full abdomen, and his neck encircled with a white cravat. Most assuredly, I need not say I differ with him, altogether and most widely, on that point. There yet remains to be performed, Mr. President, by far the most grave and important duty, which I feel to be devolved on me, by this occasion. The discussion took a wide range, going back to topics that had agitated the country before the Constitution was formed. Web hardcover $30.00 paperback $17.00 kindle nook book ibook. Perhaps a quotation from a speech in Parliament in 1803 of Lord Castlereagh, Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry (17691822) during a debate over the conduct of British officials in India. Why? Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the constitutional question. We met it as a practical question of obligation and duty. 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, 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. . Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. . . He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. 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. After his term as a senator, he served as the Governor of South Carolina. Rush-Bagot Treaty Structure & Effects | What was the Rush-Bagot Agreement? Whose agent is 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. . One of those was the Webster-Hayne debate, a series of unplanned speeches presented before the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830. . ", What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?. 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. An equally talented orator, Webster rose as the advocate of the North in the debate with his captivating reply to Hayne's initial argument. Daniel webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the. The Destiny of America, Speech at the Dedication o An Address. 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. 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. [was] fixed, forever, the character of the population in the vast regions Northwest of the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary servitude. This seemed like an Eastern spasm of jealousy at the progress of the West. 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.. Some of Webster's personal friends had felt nervous over what appeared to them too hasty a period for preparation. Mr. Webster arose, and, in conclusion, said: A few words, Mr. President, on this constitutional argument, which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstruct. . There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of the South. . Webster-Hayne Debate. 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. The action, the drama, the suspensewho needs the movies? It is the common pretense. 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 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. It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to bear up any other than free men. . 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? When, however, the gentleman proceeded to contrast the state of Ohio with Kentucky, to the disadvantage of the latter, I listened to him with regret. . . God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. 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. What interest, asks he, has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio? Sir, this very question is full of significance. 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. But his standpoint was purely local and sectional. Webster was eloquent, he was educated, he was witty, and he was a staunch defender of American liberty. The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . 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. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. The Webster-Hayne Debate between New Hampshire Senator Daniel Webster and South Carolina Senator Robert Young Hayne highlighted the sectional nature of the controversy. 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). . But the feeling is without all adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists wholly groundless. Who doesn't? 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. . . South Carolinas Declaration of the Causes of Sece Distribution of the Slave Population by State. 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. Eloquence threw open the portals of eternal day. . Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. This will co-operate with the feelings of patriotism to induce a state to avoid any measures calculated to endanger that connection. . 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. Differences between Northern and Southern ideas of good governance, which eventually led to the American Civil War, were beginning to emerge. Webster pursued his objective through a rhetorical strategy that ignored Benton, the principal opponent of New England sectionalism, and that provoked Hayne into an exposition and defense of what became the South Carolina doctrine of nullification. The gentleman has made an eloquent appeal to our hearts in favor of union. succeed. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. The dominant historical opinion of the famous debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Young Hayne of South Carolina which took place in the United States Senate in 1830 has long been that Webster defeated Hayne both as an orator and a statesman. President John Quincy Adams and the Election of 1824. The excited crowd which had packed the Senate chamber, filling every seat on the floor and in the galleries, and all the available standing room, dispersed after the orator's last grand apostrophe had died away in the air, with national pride throbbing at the heart. . . They had burst forth from arguments about a decision by Connecticut Senator Samuel Foote. 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. Well, the southern states were infuriated. . . 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. It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. If slavery, as it now exists in this country, be an evil, we of the present day found it ready made to our hands. Go to these cities now, and ask the question. But it was the honor of a caste; and the struggling bread-winners of society, the great commonalty, he little studied or understood. 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 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. They will also better understand the debate's political context. He must cut it with his sword. 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.. It was of a partizan and censorious character and drew nearly all the chief senators out. . foote wanted to stop surveying lands until they could sell the ones already looked at . Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person. Webster rose the next day in his seat to make his reply. 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. . . 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. . 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. 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 is worth noting that in the course of the debate, on the very floor of the Senate, both Hayne and Webster raised the specter of civil war 30 years before it commenced. . . Gloomy and downcast of late, Massachusetts men walked the avenue as though the fife and drum were before them. . . . Tariff of Abominations of 1828 | What was the Significance of the Tariff of Abominations? 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. . Is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? . Our notion of things is entirely different. The taxes paid by foreign nations to export American cotton, for example, generated lots of money for the government. Pet Banks History & Effects | What are Pet Banks? Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. 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. 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. A state will be restrained by a sincere love of the Union. Drama, suspense, it's all there. . I understand him to maintain this right, as a right existing under the Constitution; not as a right to overthrow it, on the ground of extreme necessity, such as would justify violent revolution. The people had had quite enough of that kind of government, under the Confederacy. Hayne's few but zealous partizans shielded him still, and South Carolina spoke with pride of him. . 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. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. It develops the gentlemans whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. 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. 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. I love a good debate. I did not utter a single word, which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. What can I say? 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. | 12 . . This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government, and the source of its power. But the topic which became the leading feature of the whole debate and gave it an undying interest was that of nullification, in which Hayne and Webster came forth as chief antagonists. . . 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. Webster replied to his speech the next day and left not a shred of the charge, baseless as it was. . God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise. 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." . Finally, sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the states will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the Constitution. 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. 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. The Most Famous Senate Speech January 26, 1830 The debate began simply enough, centering on the seemingly prosaic subjects of tariff and public land policy. Consolidation, like the tariff, grates upon his ear. Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado. In the course of my former remarks, I took occasion to deprecate, as one of the greatest of evils, the consolidation of this government. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of unplanned speeches in the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830 between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. 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 Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions Add Song of the Spinners from the Lowell Offering. 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. [2] We deal in no abstractions. . This would have been the case even if no positive provision to that effect had been inserted in that instrument. . Address to the Slaves of the United States. Explore the Webster-Hayne debate. This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. Now, have they given away that right, or agreed to limit or restrict it in any respect? . 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. See what I mean? 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. It was plenary then, and never having been surrendered, must be plenary now. The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. sir, this is but the old story. It is one from which we are not disposed to shrink, in whatever form or under whatever circumstances it may be pressed upon us. . . Its like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. Nor those other words of delusion and folly,liberty first, and union afterwardsbut everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole Heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heartliberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable! I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. What followed, the Webster Hayne debate, was one of the most famous exchanges in Senate history. . To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. But, sir, we will pass over all this. 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. No doubt can exist, that, before the states entered into the compact, they possessed the right to the fullest extent, of determining the limits of their own powersit is incident to all sovereignty. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the Supreme Law. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the states, as states, were parties to it. On that system, Ohio and Carolina are different governments, and different countries, connected here, it is true, by some slight and ill-defined bond of union, but, in all main respects, separate and diverse. . . 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. 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. 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. Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. 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. But his calm, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural So "The Whole Affair Seems the Work of a Madman", John Brown and the Principle of Nonresistance. . Between January and May 1830, twenty-one of the forty-eight senators delivered a staggering sixty-five speeches on the nature of the Union. 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. . . Judiciary Act of 1801 | Overview, History & Significance, General Ulysses S. Grant Takes Charge: His Strategic Plan for Ending the War. Hayne quotes from the Virginia Resolution (1798), authored by Thomas Jefferson, to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). . All regulated governments, all free governments, have been broken up by similar disinterested and well-disposed interference! The Webster Hayne Debate. What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion. 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. I feel like its a lifeline. . The gentleman takes alarm at the sound. The debate was important because it laid out the arguments in favor of nationalism in the face of growing sectionalism. But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. 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. 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. 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. 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). . The whole form and structure of the federal government, the opinions of the Framers of the Constitution, and the organization of the state governments, demonstrate that though the states have surrendered certain specific powers, they have not surrendered their sovereignty. 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. 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. 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. Compare And Contrast The Tension Between North And South. The speech is also known for the line Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable, which would subsequently become the state motto of North Dakota, appearing on the state seal. You see, to the south, the Constitution was essentially a treaty signed between sovereign states. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the states. 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 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. . 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. 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? Webster believed that the Constitution should be viewed as a binding document between the United States rather than an agreement between sovereign states.
Killer On The High Bridge 2022,
File A Police Report Nashville Tn,
Barnegat Brush Pickup,
Articles W
| how did suleika jaouad meet jon batiste | |||
| which of these best describes the compromise of 1877? | |||