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. It laid the interdict against personal servitude, in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper, also, than all local constitutions. The arena selected for a first impression was the Senate, where the arch-heretic himself presided and guided the onset with his eye. Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? . I am opposed, therefore, in any shape, to all unnecessary extension of the powers, or the influence of the Legislature or Executive of the Union over the states, or the people of the states; and, most of all, I am opposed to those partial distributions of favors, whether by legislation or appropriation, which has a direct and powerful tendency to spread corruption through the land; to create an abject spirit of dependence; to sow the seeds of dissolution; to produce jealousy among the different portions of the Union, and finally to sap the very foundations of the government itself. 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. . 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. It develops the gentlemans whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. You see, to the south, the Constitution was essentially a treaty signed between sovereign states. These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened . This means that South Carolina is essentially its own nation, Georgia is its own nation, and so on. 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. He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. The specific issue that sparked the Webster-Hayne debate was a proposal by the state of Connecticut which said that the federal government should halt its surveying of land west of the Mississippi and focus on selling the land it had already surveyed to private citizens. The next day, however, Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster rose with his reply, and the northern states knew they had found their champion. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. - Women's Rights Facts & Significance, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points: Definition, Speech & Summary, Fireside Chats: Definition & Significance, JFK's New Frontier: Definition, Speech & Program. Ostend Manifesto of 1854 Overview & Purpose | What was the Ostend Manifesto? . Robert Young Hayne spent more than two decades in elected offices, including mayor of Charleston, member of South Carolina's legislature, attorney general, and then governor of the state. Rush-Bagot Treaty Structure & Effects | What was the Rush-Bagot Agreement? . . We are ready to make up the issue with the gentleman, as to the influence of slavery on individual and national characteron the prosperity and greatness, either of the United States, or of particular states. Now that was a good debate! . 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. . In coming to the consideration of the next great question, what ought to be the future policy of the government in relation to the public lands? lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. . Ham, one of Noahs sons, saw him uncovered, for which Noah cursed him by making Hams son, Canaan, a slave to Ham's brothers. They will also better understand the debate's political context. . Consolidation, like the tariff, grates upon his ear. Van Buren responded to the Panic of 1837 with the idea of the independent treasury, which was a. a system of depositing money in select independent banks Several state governments or courts, some in the north, had espoused the idea of nullification prior to 1828. Lincoln-Douglas Debates History & Significance | What Was the Lincoln-Douglas Debate? . 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. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. . Expert Answers. . We see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow. 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. 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. What was going on? Visit the dark and narrow lanes, and obscure recesses, which have been assigned by common consent as the abodes of those outcasts of the worldthe free people of color. copyright 2003-2023 Study.com. 136 lessons Address to the Slaves of the United States. 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 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. 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. And who are its enemies? 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. 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. An accomplished politician, Hayne was an eloquent orator who enthralled his audiences. Rachel Venter is a recent graduate of Metropolitan State University of Denver. First, New England was vindicated. For Calhoun, see the Speech on Abolition Petitions and the Speech on the Oregon Bill. Sir, there exists, moreover, a deep and settled conviction of the benefits, which result from a close connection of all the states, for purposes of mutual protection and defense. The discussion took a wide range, going back to topics that had agitated the country before the Constitution was formed. In all the efforts that have been made by South Carolina to resist the unconstitutional laws which Congress has extended over them, she has kept steadily in view the preservation of the Union, by the only means by which she believes it can be long preserveda firm, manly, and steady resistance against usurpation. For one, Hayne and Webster were arguing for the fate of the West and, in particular, whether the North or South would control western development. The debates between daniel webster of massachusetts and robert hayne of south carolina gave. 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. Congress could only recommendtheir acts were not of binding force, till the states had adopted and sanctioned them. 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 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. What followed, the Webster Hayne debate, was one of the most famous exchanges in Senate history. Go to these cities now, and ask the question. . 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. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the Supreme Law. Tariff of Abominations of 1828 | What was the Significance of the Tariff of Abominations? Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 25, 1830. . The Webster-Hayne debate laid out key issues faced by the Senate in the 1820s and 1830s. God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise. Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) | Case, Significance & Summary. 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 taxes paid by foreign nations to export American cotton, for example, generated lots of money for the government. This is the sense in which the Framers of the Constitution use the word consolidation; and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. Webster and the northern states saw the Constitution as binding the individual states together as a single union. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches presented to the United States Senate by senators Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. 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. . . . 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? If this Constitution, sir, be the creature of state Legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the volitions of its creators. Webster-Hayne Debate book. This episode was used in nineteenth century America as a Biblical justification for slavery. 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. In many respects, his speech betrays the mentality of Massachusetts conservatives seeking to regain national leadership and advance their particular ideas about the nation. 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. 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. 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. Senator Foote, of Connecticut, submitted a proposition inquiring into the expediency of limiting the sales of public lands to those already in the market. . South Carolinas Declaration of the Causes of Sece Distribution of the Slave Population by State. In January 1830, a debate on the nature of sovereignty in the America. Connecticut and other northeastern states were worried about the pace of growth and wanted to slow this down. Some of Webster's personal friends had felt nervous over what appeared to them too hasty a period for preparation. In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. . Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. 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. The Northwest Ordinance. . 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. Between January and May 1830, twenty-one of the forty-eight senators delivered a staggering sixty-five speeches on the nature of the Union. . 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. The debate itself, a nine-day long unplanned exchange between Senators Robert Y. Hayne and Daniel Webster, directly addressed the methods by which the federal government was generating revenue, namely through protective tariffs and the selling of federal lands in the newly acquired western territories. Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the constitutional question. 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. . But his standpoint was purely local and sectional. It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. A state will be restrained by a sincere love of the Union. It is not the creature of state Legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on state sovereignties. . But I take leave of the subject. Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 20, 1830. Excerpts from Ratification Documents of Virginia a Ratifying Conventions>New York Ratifying Convention. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 27, 1830. . . Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. 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. [2] We deal in no abstractions. 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. 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. 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. His speech was indeed a powerful one of its eloquence and personality. The tendency of all these ideas and sentiments is obviously to bring the Union into discussion, as a mere question of present and temporary expediency; nothing more than a mere matter of profit and loss. 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. 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? . . 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. "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.. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Senator Daniel Webster] has gone out of his way to pass a high eulogium on the state of Ohio. It has been said that Hayne was Calhoun's sword and buckler and that he returned to the contest refreshed each morning by nightly communions with the Vice-President, drawing auxiliary supplies from the well-stored arsenal of his powerful and subtle mind. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. The debaters were Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. I deem far otherwise of the Union of the states; and so did the Framers of the Constitution themselves. Judiciary Act of 1801 | Overview, History & Significance, General Ulysses S. Grant Takes Charge: His Strategic Plan for Ending the War. The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions Add Song of the Spinners from the Lowell Offering. . Our notion of things is entirely different. It was a great and salutary measure of prevention. Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason thus. 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. 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. . . . In our contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same country; states, united under the same general government, having interests, common, associated, intermingled. As sovereign states, each state could individually interpret the Constitution and even leave the Union altogether. succeed. . 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. . . . . At the time of the debate, Webster was serving his term as Senator of Massachusetts. . . The Webster Hayne Debate. He accused them of a desire to check the growth of the West in the interests of protection. .Readers will finish the book with a clear idea of the reason Webster's "Reply" became so influential in its own day. The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . . Available in hard copy and for download. In this moment in American history, the federal government had relatively little power. 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. 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? 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. Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado. Well, let's look at the various parts. 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.. Certainly, sir, I am, and ever have been of that opinion. This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. They switched from a. the tariff of 1828 to national power . . . They had burst forth from arguments about a decision by Connecticut Senator Samuel Foote. She has a BA in political science. 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. . Hayne and the South saw it as basically a treaty between sovereign states. But, the simple expression of this sentiment has led the gentleman, not only into a labored defense of slavery, in the abstract, and on principle, but, also, into a warm accusation against me, as having attacked the system of domestic slavery, now existing in the Southern states. While the debaters argued about slavery, the economy, protection tariffs, and western land, the real implication was the meaning of the United States Constitution. It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. . But, sir, we will pass over all this. flashcard sets. Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as hardly a good. Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster's "Second Reply" to South Carolina Senator Robert Y. Hayne has long been thought of as a great oratorical celebration of American Nationalism in a period of sectional conflict. 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. We had no other general government. 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. . Who, then, Mr. President, are the true friends of the Union? Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person. The Webster-Hayne Debate between New Hampshire Senator Daniel Webster and South Carolina Senator Robert Young Hayne highlighted the sectional nature of the controversy. All rights reserved. . 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 people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. Debate on the Constitutionality of the Mexican War, Letters and Journals from the Oregon Trail. Create your account. . Its like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. It was a speech delivered before a crowded auditory, and loud were the Southern exultations that he was more than a match for Webster. Drama, suspense, it's all there. At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . 1824 Presidential Election, Candidates & Significance | Who Won the Election of 1824? . . 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. . Hayne argued that the sovereign and independent states had created the Union to promote their particular interests. . 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. 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. What can I say? There was no clear winner of the debate, but the Union's victory over the Confederacy just a few decades later brought Webster's ideas to fruition. Connecticut's proposal was an attempt to slow the growth of the nation, control westward expansion, and bolster the federal government's revenue. All regulated governments, all free governments, have been broken up by similar disinterested and well-disposed interference! States' rights (South) vs. nationalism (North). 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. 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.