Webster's articulation of the concept of the Union went on to shape American attitudes about the federal government. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. Hayne quotes from the Virginia Resolution (1798), authored by Thomas Jefferson, to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). .
Webster-Hayne Debate | Encyclopedia.com Gloomy and downcast of late, Massachusetts men walked the avenue as though the fife and drum were before them. 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. Now that was a good debate! In a time when the country was undergoing some drastic changes, this debate managed to encapsulate the essence of the growing tensions dividing the nation. Are we in that condition still? You see, to the south, the Constitution was essentially a treaty signed between sovereign states. .
Hayne, Robert Young | South Carolina Encyclopedia The United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. . 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? . Sir, I should fear the rebuke of no intelligent gentleman of Kentucky, were I to ask whether, if such an ordinance could have been applied to his own state, while it yet was a wilderness, and before Boone had passed the gap of the Alleghany, he does not suppose it would have contributed to the ultimate greatness of that commonwealth? Sir, an immense national treasury would be a fund for corruption. ", What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?. But, sir, the gentleman is mistaken. . 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.
Webster-Hayne Debate - U-S-History Besides that, however, the federal government was still figuring out its role in American society.
Webster-Hayne Debate by Stefan M. Brooks 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 supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. . Hayne was a great orator, filled with fiery passion and eloquent prose. . Our notion of things is entirely different. 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. We found that we had to deal with a people whose physical, moral, and intellectual habits and character, totally disqualified them from the enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. It was motivated by a dispute over the continued sale of western lands, an important source of revenue for the federal government. . Certainly, sir, I am, and ever have been of that opinion. When my eyes shall be turned to behold, for the last time, the sun in Heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion. This episode was used in nineteenth century America as a Biblical justification for slavery. . First, New England was vindicated. 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. One was through protective tariffs, high taxes on imports and exports. The object of the Framers of the Constitution, as disclosed in that address, was not the consolidation of the government, but the consolidation of the Union. It was not to draw power from the states, in order to transfer it to a great national government, but, in the language of the Constitution itself, to form a more perfect union; and by what means? . . That's what was happening out West. Hayne entered the U.S. Senate in 1823 and soon became prominent as a spokesman for the South and for the . . 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. Wilmot Proviso of 1846: Overview & Significance | What was the Wilmot Proviso?
What was the main issue of the Webster-Hayne debate? . . So they could finish selling the lands already surveyed. This would have been the case even if no positive provision to that effect had been inserted in that instrument. 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. 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. . 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). 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. Under that system, the legal actionthe application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. Webster and the northern states saw the Constitution as binding the individual states together as a single union. . 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. . . Those who would confine the federal government strictly within the limits prescribed by the Constitutionwho would preserve to the states and the people all powers not expressly delegatedwho would make this a federal and not a national Unionand who, administering the government in a spirit of equal justice, would make it a blessing and not a curse. I deem far otherwise of the Union of the states; and so did the Framers of the Constitution themselves. . . Noah grew a vineyard, got drunk on wine and lay naked. To them, this was a scheme to give the federal government more control over the cost of land by creating a scarcity. . 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. Read reviews from world's largest community for readers. . Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. 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. This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. . 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. . 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. And here it will be necessary to go back to the origin of the federal government. MTEL Speech: Notable Debates & Speeches in U.S. History, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858: Summary & Significance, Psychological Research & Experimental Design, All Teacher Certification Test Prep Courses, The Significance of Daniel Webster's Argument, MTEL Speech: Principles of Argument & Debate, MTEL Speech: Understanding Persuasive Communication, MTEL Speech: Public Argument in Democratic Societies. But his calm, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. A four-speech debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina, in January 1830. .
The Webster Hayne Debate - DEBETE CJK 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. But, according to the gentlemans reading, the object of the Constitution was to consolidate the government, and the means would seem to be, the promotion of injustice, causing domestic discord, and depriving the states and the people of the blessings of liberty forever. But it was the honor of a caste; and the struggling bread-winners of society, the great commonalty, he little studied or understood. It is, sir, the peoples Constitution, the peoples government; made for the people; made by the people; and answerable to the people. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 25, 1830. . . 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. . Tariff of Abominations of 1828 | What was the Significance of the Tariff of Abominations? 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. 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. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. . Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Who doesn't?
Why was the Hayne-Webster debate important? - eNotes.com . States' rights (South) vs. nationalism (North). 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 . Webster and the North treated it as binding the states together as a single union. 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. 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. 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. Webster was eloquent, he was educated, he was witty, and he was a staunch defender of American liberty. It would be equally fatal to the sovereignty and independence of the states. 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. Let's start by looking at the United States around 1830. 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.. 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. Webster argued that the American people had created the Union to promote the good of the whole.