. 136 lessons 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. 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. I did not utter a single word, which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. The Northwest Ordinance. Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason thus. 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. Debate on the Constitutionality of the Mexican War, Letters and Journals from the Oregon Trail. . 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. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. Consolidation, like the tariff, grates upon his ear. . This seemed like an Eastern spasm of jealousy at the progress of the West. . . 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. . Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural So "The Whole Affair Seems the Work of a Madman", John Brown and the Principle of Nonresistance. Regional Conflict in America: Debate Over States' Rights. Jackson himself would raise a national toast for 'the Union' later that year. Most assuredly, I need not say I differ with him, altogether and most widely, on that point. 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. 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. 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? Religious Views: Letter to the Editor of the Illin Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Douglas Faction), (Northern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. 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. . . . But, sir, the gentleman is mistaken. . It was plenary then, and never having been surrendered, must be plenary now. succeed. It is only regarded as a possible means of good; or on the other hand, as a possible means of evil. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. 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. 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. States' rights (South) vs. nationalism (North). Webster-Hayne Debate by Stefan M. Brooks 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. For Calhoun, see the Speech on Abolition Petitions and the Speech on the Oregon Bill. If these opinions be thought doubtful, they are, nevertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. U.S. Senate: The Most Famous Senate Speech . 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. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. 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. Would it be safe to confide such a treasure to the keeping of our national rulers? [2] We deal in no abstractions. . . . By establishing justice, promoting domestic tranquility, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. This is the true reading of the Constitution. 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. 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? . Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? Webster denied it and, attempting to draw Hayne into a direct confrontation, disparaged slavery and attacked the constitutional scruples of southern nullifiers and their apparent willingness to calculate the Union's value in monetary terms. . . He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. Webster rose the next day in his seat to make his reply. We look upon the states, not as separated, but as united. We will not look back to inquire whether our fathers were guiltless in introducing slaves into this country. . Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 25, 1830. . State governments were in control of their own affairs and expected little intervention from the federal government. The main issue of the Webster-Hayne Debate was the nature of the country that had been created by the Constitution. The United States, under the Constitution and federal government, was a single, unified nation, not a coalition of sovereign states. The Significance of the Frontier in American Histo South Carolinas Ordinance of Nullification. . The gentleman has made an eloquent appeal to our hearts in favor of union. The United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. They will also better understand the debate's political context. Gloomy and downcast of late, Massachusetts men walked the avenue as though the fife and drum were before them. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the states, as states, were parties to it. This would have been the case even if no positive provision to that effect had been inserted in that instrument. . . He joined Hayne in using this opportunity to try to detach the West from the East, and restore the old cooperation of the West and the South against New England. The militia of the state will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. . What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? The debaters were Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. The next day, however, Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster rose with his reply, and the northern states knew they had found their champion. Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 20, 1830. . Who doesn't? 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. 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? . . Well, it's important to remember that the nation was still young and much different than what we think of today. Explore the Webster-Hayne debate. While the debaters argued about slavery, the economy, protection tariffs, and western land, the real implication was the meaning of the United States Constitution. 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. The Webster-Hayne Debate: An Inquiry into the Nature of Union by Stefan . Webster's articulation of the concept of the Union went on to shape American attitudes about the federal government. 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. Now, I wish to be informedhowthis state interference is to be put in practice, without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. 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. . - Women's Rights Facts & Significance, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points: Definition, Speech & Summary, Fireside Chats: Definition & Significance, JFK's New Frontier: Definition, Speech & Program. But still, throughout American history, several debates have captured the nation's attention in a way that would make even Hollywood jealous. But the feeling is without all adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists wholly groundless. 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 now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentlemans doctrine a little into its practical application. . . 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. Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. In many respects, his speech betrays the mentality of Massachusetts conservatives seeking to regain national leadership and advance their particular ideas about the nation. Famous Speeches by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. MTEL Speech: Ethical & Legal Communications, MTEL Speech: Delivering Effective Speeches, MTEL Speech: Using Communication Aids for Speeches, NY Regents Exam - US History and Government: Tutoring Solution, Business 104: Information Systems and Computer Applications, GED Math: Quantitative, Arithmetic & Algebraic Problem Solving, GED Social Studies: Civics & Government, US History, Economics, Geography & World, CSET Foundational-Level General Science (215) Prep, CSET English Subtests I & III (105 & 107): Practice & Study Guide, Managing Risk to Enhance & Maintain Your Health, Types of Healthcare Professionals & Delivery Systems, Consumer Health: Laws, Regulations & Agencies, The Role of School Health Advisory Councils in Texas, Teaching Sensitive or Controversial Health Issues, Calculating the Square Root of 27: How-To & Steps, Linear Transformations: Properties & Examples, Chemical Safety: Preparation, Use, Storage, and Disposal, Spectrophotometers: Definition, Uses, and Parts, What is an Autoclave? Now that was a good debate! Help if you can :) please and ty The debate continued, in some ways not being fully settled until the completion of the Civil War affirmed the power of the federal government to preserve the Union over the sovereignty of the states to leave it. . 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. All of these ideas, however, are only parts of the main point. This is the sum of what I understand from him, to be the South Carolina doctrine; and the doctrine which he maintains. 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. The Webster-Hayne Debate - 1830 - YouTube 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. . 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. . Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives. Webster-Hayne debate - Wikisource, the free online library . Are we in that condition still? Most are forgettable, to put it charitably. - Definition and Uses, Public Speaking: Assignment 1 - Informative Speech, Public Speaking: Assignment 3 - Special Occasion Speech, The Role of Probability Distributions, Random Numbers & the Computer in Simulations, The Monte Carlo Simulation: Scope & Common Applications, Working Scholars Bringing Tuition-Free College to the Community, The methods by which the federal government earned its revenue, The federal government's surveying and selling of land west of the Mississippi River, The issue of slavery, which was beginning to divide the Northern and Southern states, The balance of power between federal and state governments. 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. The Webster-Hayne Debate between New Hampshire Senator Daniel Webster and South Carolina Senator Robert Young Hayne highlighted the sectional nature of the controversy. Competing Conceptions of Union and Ordered Liberty in The Webster-Hayne . 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. 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. See what I mean? . At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . They significantly declare, that it is time to calculate the value of the Union; and their aim seems to be to enumerate, and to magnify all the evils, real and imaginary, which the government under the Union produces. Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. I have but one word more to add. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Senator Daniel Webster] has gone out of his way to pass a high eulogium on the state of Ohio. Under that system, the legal actionthe application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. 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. Hayne quotes from Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, December 26, 1825, https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-william-branch-giles/?_sft_document_author=thomas-jefferson. 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 The impression which has gone abroad, of the weakness of the South, as connected with the slave question, exposes us to such constant attacks, has done us so much injury, and is calculated to produce such infinite mischiefs, that I embrace the occasion presented by the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts, to declare that we are ready to meet the question promptly and fearlessly. Record of the Organization and Proceedings of The Massachusetts Lawmakers Investigate Working Condit State (Colonial) Legislatures>Massachusetts State Legislature. The purpose of the Constitution was to permit cooperation between states under a shared political standard, but that meant that any growth in a federal government threatened the sovereignty of the states. Why? . Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Broadside Advertisement for Runaway Slave, Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a Free-Soiler, Free & Slave-holding States and Territories. Webster and the northern states saw the Constitution as binding the individual states together as a single union. . The discussion took a wide range, going back to topics that had agitated the country before the Constitution was formed. Robert Young Hayne | American politician | Britannica . He served as a U.S. senator from 1823 to 1832, and was a leading proponent of the states' rights doctrine. copyright 2003-2023 Study.com. This episode was used in nineteenth century America as a Biblical justification for slavery. 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. . So they could finish selling the lands already surveyed. . Francis O. J. Smith to Secretary of State Dan Special Message to the House of Representatives, Special Message to Congress on Mexican Relations. | 12 What was going on? The other way was through the sale of federally-owned land to private citizens. . My life upon it, sir, they would not. . . "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.. 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. Now, have they given away that right, or agreed to limit or restrict it in any respect? 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. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. I feel like its a lifeline. That's what was happening out West. The Webster Hayne 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. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. 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. South Carolinas Declaration of the Causes of Sece Distribution of the Slave Population by State. The Webster-Hayne Debate: Defining Nationhood in the Early American Tariff of Abominations of 1828 | What was the Significance of the Tariff of Abominations? . . 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. Daniel Webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the danger of the states' rights doctrine, which permitted each State to decide for itself which laws were unconstitutional, claiming it would lead to civil war. 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. 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. 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. Congress could only recommendtheir acts were not of binding force, till the states had adopted and sanctioned them. . . . 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. The taxes paid by foreign nations to export American cotton, for example, generated lots of money for the government. Competing Conceptions of Union and Ordered Liberty in We met it as a practical question of obligation and duty. 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. 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. The honorable member himself is not, I trust, and can never be, one of these. It is, sir, the peoples Constitution, the peoples government; made for the people; made by the people; and answerable to the people. Nor shall I stop there. The real significance of this debate was in each man's interpretation of the United States Constitution. When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the states, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened . Pet Banks History & Effects | What are Pet Banks? . Crittenden Compromise Plan & Reception | What was the Crittenden Compromise? Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 26 and 27, 1830. 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.