what idea was espoused with the webster hayne debates

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. The discussion took a wide range, going back to topics that had agitated the country before the Constitution was formed. It was a speech delivered before a crowded auditory, and loud were the Southern exultations that he was more than a match for Webster. The Revelation on Celestial Marriage: Trouble Amon Hon. This is the true constitutional consolidation. - Women's Rights Facts & Significance, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points: Definition, Speech & Summary, Fireside Chats: Definition & Significance, JFK's New Frontier: Definition, Speech & Program. This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. The action, the drama, the suspensewho needs the movies? . . . An undefinable dread now went abroad that men were planning against the peace of the nation, that the Union was in danger; and citizens looked more closely after its safety and welfare. . . Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. . . Sir, I will not stop at the border; I will carry the war into the enemys territory, and not consent to lay down my arms, until I shall have obtained indemnity for the past, and security for the future.[4] It is with unfeigned reluctance that I enter upon the performance of this part of my duty. . Available in hard copy and for download. . The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. It is worth noting that in the course of the debate, on the very floor of the Senate, both Hayne and Webster raised the specter of civil war 30 years before it commenced. 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. 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 did not utter a single word, which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. This was the tenor of Webster's speech, and nobly did the country respond to it. Senator Foote, of Connecticut, submitted a proposition inquiring into the expediency of limiting the sales of public lands to those already in the market. The debaters were Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. More specifically, some of the issues facing Congress during this period included: Robert Y. Hayne served as Senator of South Carolina from 1823 to 1832. 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. . I now proceed to show that it is perfectly safe, and will practically have no effect but to keep the federal government within the limits of the Constitution, and prevent those unwarrantable assumptions of power, which cannot fail to impair the rights of the states, and finally destroy the Union itself. 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. . . One of those was the Webster-Hayne debate, a series of unplanned speeches presented before the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830. 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? Most assuredly, I need not say I differ with him, altogether and most widely, on that point. 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. 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. . He had allowed himself but a single night from eve to morn to prepare for a critical and crowning occasion. We see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow. What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? I understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina to maintain, that it is a right of the state legislatures to interfere, whenever, in their judgment, this government transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of its laws. . 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 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. copyright 2003-2023 Study.com. Correspondence Between Anthony Butler and Presiden State of the Union Address Part II (1846). . South Carolinas Declaration of the Causes of Secession (1860), Jefferson Daviss Inaugural Address (1861), Documents in Detail: The Webster-Hayne Debates, Remarks in Congress on the Tariff of Abominations, Check out our collection of primary source readers. Those who would confine the federal government strictly within the limits prescribed by the Constitutionwho would preserve to the states and the people all powers not expressly delegatedwho would make this a federal and not a national Unionand who, administering the government in a spirit of equal justice, would make it a blessing and not a curse. The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . States' rights (South) vs. nationalism (North). . . All of these ideas, however, are only parts of the main point. A state will be restrained by a sincere love of the Union. They attack nobody, and menace nobody. This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. . . South Carolina nullification was now coming in sight, and a celebrated debate that belongs to the first session exposed its claims and its fallacies to the country. Web hardcover $30.00 paperback $17.00 kindle nook book ibook. 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. 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. Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. . . It cannot be doubted, and is not denied, that before the formation of the constitution, each state was an independent sovereignty, possessing all the rights and powers appertaining to independent nations; nor can it be denied that, after the Constitution was formed, they remained equally sovereign and independent, as to all powers, not expressly delegated to the federal government. 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. Religious Views: Letter to the Editor of the Illin Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Douglas Faction), (Northern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. 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. In the course of my former remarks, I took occasion to deprecate, as one of the greatest of evils, the consolidation of this government. In this regard, Webster anticipated an argument that Abraham Lincoln made in his First Inaugural Address (1861). My life upon it, sir, they would not. But the gentleman apprehends that this will make the Union a rope of sand. Sir, I have shown that it is a power indispensably necessary to the preservation of the constitutional rights of the states, and of the people. foote wanted to stop surveying lands until they could sell the ones already looked at MTEL Speech: Public Discourse & Debate in the U.S. 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. If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have war. In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. Go to these cities now, and ask the question. . 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 Hayne-Webster Debate was 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. Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. . 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. . Webster and the northern states saw the Constitution as binding the individual states together as a single union. He remained a Southern Unionist through his long public career and a good type of the growing class of statesman devoted to slave interests who loved the Union as it was and doted upon its compromises. We all know that civil institutions are established for the public benefit, and that when they cease to answer the ends of their existence, they may be changed. 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 I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. One was through protective tariffs, high taxes on imports and exports. Webster-Hayne Debate book. Sir, when the gentleman provokes me to such a conflict, I meet him at the threshold. Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . Well, the southern states were infuriated. Sir, I cordially respond to that appeal. 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. 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. . Assuredly not. The people of the United States cherish a devotion to the Union, so pure, so ardent, that nothing short of intolerable oppression, can ever tempt them to do anything that may possibly endanger it. I regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest of evils, both moral and political. The people had had quite enough of that kind of government, under the Confederacy. 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? 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. As a pious son of Federalism, Webster went the full length of the required defense. It is the servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different wills and different purposes, and yet bound to obey all. It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion. 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. At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . I am a Unionist, and in this sense a national Republican. . Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado. Ostend Manifesto of 1854 Overview & Purpose | What was the Ostend Manifesto? 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. 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. 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. . . This episode was used in nineteenth century America as a Biblical justification for slavery. 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. 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? Between January and May 1830, twenty-one of the forty-eight senators delivered a staggering sixty-five speeches on the nature of the Union. When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the states, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. But his calm, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. Most are forgettable, to put it charitably. 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. . Next, the Union was held up to view in all its strength, symmetry, and integrity, reposing in the ark of the Constitution, no longer an experiment, as in the days when Hamilton and Jefferson contended for shaping its course, but ordained and established by and for the people, to secure the blessings of liberty to all posterity.

Who Is Omi In A Hellcat Girlfriend, Loudonville, Ohio Events 2021, Which Of The Sentences Contain Buried Verbs? Quizlet, Lamar Terrace Apartments Paris, Tx, Supporting Teaching And Learning In Schools Level 3 Assignment 1, Articles W