The faction of voters in the North were against slavery and feared it spreading into new territory. . One was through protective tariffs, high taxes on imports and exports. For the next several days, the men traded speeches which contemporaries of the time described as the greatest orations ever delivered in the Senate. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. Sir, when the gentleman provokes me to such a conflict, I meet him at the threshold. 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. Webster believed that the Constitution should be viewed as a binding document between the United States rather than an agreement between sovereign states. This government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. . 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. 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. . Ah! For Calhoun, see the Speech on Abolition Petitions and the Speech on the Oregon Bill. This would have been the case even if no positive provision to that effect had been inserted in that instrument. Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason thus. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll hopefully stay awake until the end of the lesson. State governments were in control of their own affairs and expected little intervention from the federal government. These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened . 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. So they could finish selling the lands already surveyed. 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. But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the 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. Under that system, the legal actionthe application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. He entered the Senate on that memorable day with a slow and stately step and took his seat as though unconscious of the loud buzz of expectant interest with which the crowded auditory greeted his appearance. . And who are its enemies? . Pet Banks History & Effects | What are Pet Banks? When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. This episode was used in nineteenth century America as a Biblical justification for slavery. Well, the southern states were infuriated. 1824 Presidential Election, Candidates & Significance | Who Won the Election of 1824? . 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. Lincoln-Douglas Debates History & Significance | What Was the Lincoln-Douglas Debate? . . The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . The debaters were Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. . 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. . . . It was motivated by a dispute over the continued sale of western lands, an important source of revenue for the federal government. Expert Answers. In this moment in American history, the federal government had relatively little power. 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. It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. 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. Mr. Webster arose, and, in conclusion, said: A few words, Mr. President, on this constitutional argument, which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstruct. Shedding weak tears over sufferings which had existence only in their own sickly imaginations, these friends of humanity set themselves systematically to work to seduce the slaves of the South from their masters. 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. Battle of Fort Sumter in the Civil War | Who Won the Battle of Fort Sumter? . Judiciary Act of 1801 | Overview, History & Significance, General Ulysses S. Grant Takes Charge: His Strategic Plan for Ending the War. The real significance of this debate was in each man's interpretation of the United States Constitution. 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. 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. Webster-Hayne Debate. . Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 26 and 27, 1830. The Webster-Hayne debate laid out key issues faced by the Senate in the 1820s and 1830s. It was a great and salutary measure of prevention. The gentleman takes alarm at the sound. If the federal government, in all or any of its departments, are to prescribe the limits of its own authority; and the states are bound to submit to the decision, and are not to be allowed to examine and decide for themselves, when the barriers of the Constitution shall be overleaped, this is practically a government without limitation of powers; the states are at once reduced to mere petty corporations, and the people are entirely at your mercy. 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. . The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the states, as states, were parties to it. Create your account. Hayne and the South saw it as basically a treaty between sovereign states. What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion. I feel like its a lifeline. 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.. South Carolinas Declaration of the Causes of Sece Distribution of the Slave Population by State. The next day, however, Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster rose with his reply, and the northern states knew they had found their champion. . The Significance of the Frontier in American Histo South Carolinas Ordinance of Nullification. Wilmot Proviso of 1846: Overview & Significance | What was the Wilmot Proviso? 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? If they mean merely this, then, no doubt, the public lands as well as everything else in which we have a common interest, tends to consolidation; and to this species of consolidation every true American ought to be attached; it is neither more nor less than strengthening the Union itself. . The militia of the state will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. 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. Hayne entered the U.S. Senate in 1823 and soon became prominent as a spokesman for the South and for the . . 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. 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. While the debaters argued about slavery, the economy, protection tariffs, and western land, the real implication was the meaning of the United States Constitution. 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. lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. Eloquence threw open the portals of eternal day. 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. Available in hard copy and for download. . He was a lawyer turned congressional representative who eventually worked his way to the office of U.S. Secretary of State. . . Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural So "The Whole Affair Seems the Work of a Madman", John Brown and the Principle of Nonresistance. 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. . Ostend Manifesto of 1854 Overview & Purpose | What was the Ostend Manifesto? . . Excerpts from Ratification Documents of Virginia a Ratifying Conventions>New York Ratifying Convention. 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 . 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. 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. 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 . . Compare And Contrast The Tension Between North And South. Sir, an immense national treasury would be a fund for corruption. 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. . Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? Differences between Northern and Southern ideas of good governance, which eventually led to the American Civil War, were beginning to emerge. . 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. We who come here, as agents and representatives of these narrow-minded and selfish men of New England, consider ourselves as bound to regard, with equal eye, the good of the whole, in whatever is within our power of legislation. We will not look back to inquire whether our fathers were guiltless in introducing slaves into this country. 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 action, the drama, the suspensewho needs the movies? . . Webster realized that if the social, political, and economic elite of Massachusetts and the Northeast were to once again lay claim to national leadership, he had to justify New England's previous history of sectionalism within a framework of nationalistic progression. She has a BA in political science. 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. 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." 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. In our contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same country; states, united under the same general government, having interests, common, associated, intermingled. 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. Ham, one of Noahs sons, saw him uncovered, for which Noah cursed him by making Hams son, Canaan, a slave to Ham's brothers. 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. Thirty years before the Civil War broke out, disunion appeared to be on the horizon with the Nullification Crisis. 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. Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. For all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in anything said or intimated by me. In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. Debate on the Constitutionality of the Mexican War, Letters and Journals from the Oregon Trail. 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. . . The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts while he exonerates me personally from the charge, intimates that there is a party in the country who are looking to disunion. Several state governments or courts, some in the north, had espoused the idea of nullification prior to 1828. It is one from which we are not disposed to shrink, in whatever form or under whatever circumstances it may be pressed upon us. . They will also better understand the debate's political context. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. 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. 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. We look upon the states, not as separated, but as united. . This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. 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. 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. . . In 1830, the federal government collected few taxes and had two primary sources of revenue.