It is only regarded as a possible means of good; or on the other hand, as a possible means of evil. [was] fixed, forever, the character of the population in the vast regions Northwest of the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary servitude. . 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. Sir, an immense national treasury would be a fund for corruption. 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. 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. Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Besides that, however, the federal government was still figuring out its role in American society. . And who are its enemies? . Consolidation, like the tariff, grates upon his ear. One was through protective tariffs, high taxes on imports and exports. 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. 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. 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. 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. The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . Most are forgettable, to put it charitably. 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. - Women's Rights Facts & Significance, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points: Definition, Speech & Summary, Fireside Chats: Definition & Significance, JFK's New Frontier: Definition, Speech & Program. Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. sir, this is but the old story. They had burst forth from arguments about a decision by Connecticut Senator Samuel Foote. Rush-Bagot Treaty Structure & Effects | What was the Rush-Bagot Agreement? South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification 1832 | Crisis, Cause & Issues. 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. . So what was this debate really about? His speech was indeed a powerful one of its eloquence and personality. What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion. Web hardcover $30.00 paperback $17.00 kindle nook book ibook. . Ostend Manifesto of 1854 Overview & Purpose | What was the Ostend Manifesto? 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. Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. 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 Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches delivered before the Senate in 1830. I shrink almost instinctively from a course, however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feelings, and sectional jealousies. 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. Assuredly not. Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. This episode was used in nineteenth century America as a Biblical justification for slavery. Why? Enrolling in a course lets you earn progress by passing quizzes and exams. Even more pointedly, his speech reflected a decade of arguments from other Massachusetts conservatives who argued against supposed threats to New England's social order.[2]. All of these ideas, however, are only parts of the main point. . 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. It is observable enough, that the doctrine for which the honorable gentleman contends, leads him to the necessity of maintaining, not only that this general government is the creature of the states, but that it is the creature of each of the states severally; so that each may assert the power, for itself, of determining whether it acts within the limits of its authority. 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. 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? . It was a great and salutary measure of prevention. 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. God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. 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. I'm imagining that your answer is probably 'I do.' Let us look at the historical facts. . But his reply was gathered from the choicest arguments and the most decadent thoughts that had long floated through his brain while this crisis was gathering; and bringing these materials together in a lucid and compact shape, he calmly composed and delivered before another crowded and breathless auditory a speech full of burning passages, which will live as long as the American Union, and the grandest effort of his life. Let's start by looking at the United States around 1830. Finally, sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the states will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the Constitution. Inflamed and mortified at this repulse, Hayne soon returned to the assault, primed with a two-day speech, which at great length vaunted the patriotism of South Carolina and bitterly attacked New England, dwelling particularly upon her conduct during the late war. The Webster-Hayne debates began over one issue but quickly switched to another. Hayne entered the U.S. Senate in 1823 and soon became prominent as a spokesman for the South and for the . 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. 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.. 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. I wish to see no new powers drawn to the general government; but I confess I rejoice in whatever tends to strengthen the bond that unites us, and encourages the hope that our Union may be perpetual. This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. This seemed like an Eastern spasm of jealousy at the progress of the West. . To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. The discussion took a wide range, going back to topics that had agitated the country before the Constitution was formed. Is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? Judiciary Act of 1801 | Overview, History & Significance, General Ulysses S. Grant Takes Charge: His Strategic Plan for Ending the War. It is one from which we are not disposed to shrink, in whatever form or under whatever circumstances it may be pressed upon us. 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. 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. 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? The theory that the states' may vote against unfair laws. 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. . 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. Eloquence threw open the portals of eternal day. Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) | Case, Significance & Summary. The taxes paid by foreign nations to export American cotton, for example, generated lots of money for the government. Jackson himself would raise a national toast for 'the Union' later that year. Between January and May 1830, twenty-one of the forty-eight senators delivered a staggering sixty-five speeches on the nature of the Union. [2] We deal in no abstractions. His ideas about federalism and his interpretation of the Constitution as a document uniting the states under one supreme law were highly influential in the eyes of his contemporaries and would influence the rebuilding of the nation after the Civil War. Their own power over their own instrument remains. 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. But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. The debate was important because it laid out the arguments in favor of nationalism in the face of growing sectionalism. Now, I wish to be informedhowthis state interference is to be put in practice, without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. . Historians love a good debate. 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. Nor shall I stop there. 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. . But, sir, the gentleman is mistaken. 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. . Post-Civil War, as the nation rebuilt and reconciled the balance between federal and state government, federal law became the supreme law of the land, just as Webster desired. Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason thus. Since as Vice President and President of the Senate, Calhoun could not take place in the debate, Hayne represented the pro-nullification point-of-view. Hayne quotes from the Virginia Resolution (1798), authored by Thomas Jefferson, to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). Southern states advocated for strong, sovereign state governments, a small federal government, the western expansion of the agricultural economy, and with it, the maintenance of the institution of slavery. copyright 2003-2023 Study.com. Address to the Slaves of the United States. 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. . . 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. We had no other general government. 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. South Carolinas Declaration of the Causes of Sece Distribution of the Slave Population by State. The gentleman insists that the states have no right to decide whether the constitution has been violated by acts of Congress or not,but that the federal government is the exclusive judge of the extent of its own powers; and that in case of a violation of the constitution, however deliberate, palpable and dangerous, a state has no constitutional redress, except where the matter can be brought before the Supreme Court, whose decision must be final and conclusive on the subject. During the course of the debates, the senators touched on pressing political issues of the daythe tariff, Western lands, internal improvementsbecause behind these and others were two very different understandings of the origin and nature of the American Union. It was a speech delivered before a crowded auditory, and loud were the Southern exultations that he was more than a match for Webster. This is the sum of what I understand from him, to be the South Carolina doctrine; and the doctrine which he maintains. Well, let's look at the various parts. My life upon it, sir, they would not. But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the states. Hayne launched his confident javelin at the New England States. It was motivated by a dispute over the continued sale of western lands, an important source of revenue for the federal government. This, sir, is General Washingtons consolidation. What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? 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 . Neither side can be said to have 'won' the debate, but Webster's articulation of the Union solidified for many the role of the federal government. The gentleman takes alarm at the sound. 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. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 19, 1830. Sir, the very chief end, the main design, for which the whole Constitution was framed and adopted, was to establish a government that should not be obliged to act through state agency, or depend on state opinion and state discretion. Sir, I cordially respond to that appeal. 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. Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person. We will not look back to inquire whether our fathers were guiltless in introducing slaves into this country. 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. We look upon the states, not as separated, but as united. 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 . In January 1830, a debate on the nature of sovereignty in the America. As a pious son of Federalism, Webster went the full length of the required defense. She has a BA in political science. 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. Now that was a good debate! Now, have they given away that right, or agreed to limit or restrict it in any respect? A four-speech debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina, in January 1830. A speech by Louisiana Senator Edward Livingston, however, neatly explains how American nationhood encompasses elements of both Webster and Hayne's ideas. Pet Banks History & Effects | What are Pet Banks? President Andrew Jackson had just been elected, most of the states got rid of property requirements for voting, and an entire new era of democracy was being born. . . . 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. But I do not understand the doctrine now contended for to be that which, for the sake of distinctness, we may call the right of revolution. I know, full well, that it is, and has been, the settled policy of some persons in the South, for years, to represent the people of the North as disposed to interfere with them, in their own exclusive and peculiar concerns. 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. Webster argued that the American people had created the Union to promote the good of the whole. To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. . 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. There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of the South. . 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). This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government, and the source of its power. 1824 Presidential Election, Candidates & Significance | Who Won the Election of 1824? Create your account. Let their last feeble and lingering glance, rather behold the gorgeous Ensign of the Republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original luster, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscuredbearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as, what is all this worth? 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! . . succeed. . . No hanging over the abyss of disunion, no weighing of the chances, no doubting as to what the Constitution was worth, no placing of liberty before Union, but "liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable." Webster's articulation of the concept of the Union went on to shape American attitudes about the federal government. . Correct answers: 2 question: Which of the following is the best definition of a hypothesis? 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? Webster and the northern states saw the Constitution as binding the individual states together as a single union. Several state governments or courts, some in the north, had espoused the idea of nullification prior to 1828. Webster believed that the Constitution should be viewed as a binding document between the United States rather than an agreement between sovereign states. And here it will be necessary to go back to the origin of the federal government. Correspondence Between Anthony Butler and Presiden State of the Union Address Part II (1846). . 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. Religious Views: Letter to the Editor of the Illin Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Douglas Faction), (Northern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. The people had had quite enough of that kind of government, under the Confederacy. These irreconcilable views of national supremacy and state sovereignty framed the constitutional struggle that led to Civil War thirty years later. If slavery, as it now exists in this country, be an evil, we of the present day found it ready made to our hands. States' rights (South) vs. nationalism (North). . 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. If this is to become one great consolidated government, swallowing up the rights of the states, and the liberties of the citizen, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman, and beggared yeomanry,[8] the Union will not be worth preserving. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. . 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. Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. 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. 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. 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. I say, the right of a state to annul a law of Congress, cannot be maintained, but on the ground of the unalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. Certainly, sir, I am, and ever have been of that opinion. If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have war. . Edited and introduced by Jason W. Stevens. Northern states intended to strengthen the federal government, binding the states in the union under one supreme law, and eradicating the use of slave labor in the rapidly growing nation. Excerpts from Ratification Documents of Virginia a Ratifying Conventions>New York Ratifying Convention. In 1830, the federal government collected few taxes and had two primary sources of revenue. 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. 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.. Mr. Webster arose, and, in conclusion, said: A few words, Mr. President, on this constitutional argument, which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstruct. . 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. 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. . . . But it was the honor of a caste; and the struggling bread-winners of society, the great commonalty, he little studied or understood. Rachel Venter is a recent graduate of Metropolitan State University of Denver. . . The people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. . They will not destroy it, they will not impair itthey will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! 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. 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. The debate was on. 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?