This feeling, always carefully kept alive, and maintained at too intense a heat to admit discrimination or reflection, is a lever of great power in our political machine. 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. . He describes fully that old state of things then existing. 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. . 1830's APUSH Flashcards | Quizlet 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. What was going on? He had allowed himself but a single night from eve to morn to prepare for a critical and crowning occasion. 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. . 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. 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. . An equally. . Help if you can :) please and ty . . But still, throughout American history, several debates have captured the nation's attention in a way that would make even Hollywood jealous. Their own power over their own instrument remains. 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 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. . 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. Foot calling for the temporary suspension of further land surveying until land already on the market was sold (to effectively stop the introduction of new lands onto the market). God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise. . lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. . State governments were in control of their own affairs and expected little intervention from the federal government. 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. Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. The Webster-Hayne Debate | Overview, Issues & Significance - Study Web hardcover $30.00 paperback $17.00 kindle nook book ibook. 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. . The Virginia Resolution asserted that when the federal government undertook the deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of powers not granted to it in the constitution, states had the right and duty to interpose their authority to prevent this evil. - 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. Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. He was a lawyer turned congressional representative who eventually worked his way to the office of U.S. Secretary of State. The debate was on. Expert Answers. 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? 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. Drama, suspense, it's all there. All rights reserved. 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. 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. These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened . . . 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? The Northwest Ordinance. The debate, which took place between January 19th and January 27th, 1830, encapsulated the major issues facing the newly founded United States in the 1820s and 1830s; the balance of power between the federal and state governments, the development of the democratic process, and the growing tension between Northern and Southern states. If they mean merely this, then, no doubt, the public lands as well as everything else in which we have a common interest, tends to consolidation; and to this species of consolidation every true American ought to be attached; it is neither more nor less than strengthening the Union itself. The 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. As sovereign states, each state could individually interpret the Constitution and even leave the Union altogether. Now that was a good debate! succeed. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. 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. . . I spoke, sir, of the ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery, in all future times, northwest of the Ohio,[6] as a measure of great wisdom and foresight; and one which had been attended with highly beneficial and permanent consequences. . What interest, asks he, has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio? Sir, this very question is full of significance. 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. . 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. To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. Historians love a good debate. . . . . This is the true constitutional consolidation. Compare And Contrast The Tension Between North And South 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. to expose them to the temptations inseparable from the direction and control of a fund which might be enlarged or diminished almost at pleasure, without imposing burthens upon the people? The action, the drama, the suspensewho needs the movies? 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 would strengthen the ties that hold us together. . Webster-Hayne debate - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . It is, sir, the peoples Constitution, the peoples government; made for the people; made by the people; and answerable to the people. . There was an end to all apprehension. . The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. 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. They attack nobody, and menace nobody. Who Won the Webster-Hayne Debate of 1830? - Abbeville Institute I'm imagining that your answer is probably 'I do.' A four-speech debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina, in January 1830. Rachel Venter is a recent graduate of Metropolitan State University of Denver. 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. 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. One was through protective tariffs, high taxes on imports and exports. . My life upon it, sir, they would not. 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. . The Webster-Hayne Debates | Teaching American History He rose, the image of conscious mastery, after the dull preliminary business of the day was dispatched, and with a happy figurative allusion to the tossed mariner, as he called for a reading of the resolution from which the debate had so far drifted, lifted his audience at once to his level. 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. . . 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 is only regarded as a possible means of good; or on the other hand, as a possible means of evil. Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado. . 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. 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. 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. We look upon the states, not as separated, but as united. It develops the gentlemans whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. Francis O. J. Smith to Secretary of State Dan Special Message to the House of Representatives, Special Message to Congress on Mexican Relations. Gloomy and downcast of late, Massachusetts men walked the avenue as though the fife and drum were before them. One of the most storied match-ups in Senate history, the 1830 Webster-Hayne debate began with a beef between Northeast states and Western states over a plan to restrict . Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitution under which we sit. At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . I understand him to insist, that if the exigency of the case, in the opinion of any state government, require it, such state government may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the general government, which it deems plainly and palpably unconstitutional. Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Breckinridge Facti (Southern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. 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. In The Webster-Hayne Debate, Christopher Childers examines the context of the debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and his Senate colleague Robert S. Hayne of South Carolina in January 1830 . This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government, and the source of its power. 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. . Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. 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. Andrew Jackson & the Nullification Crisis | The Hermitage Hayne launched his confident javelin at the New England States. 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. 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. 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.. . The significance of Daniel Webster's argument went far beyond the immediate proposal at hand. The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. President John Quincy Adams and the Election of 1824. Sir, an immense national treasury would be a fund for corruption. Create your account. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you . Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. It laid the interdict against personal servitude, in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper, also, than all local constitutions. It is one from which we are not disposed to shrink, in whatever form or under whatever circumstances it may be pressed upon us. 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 Curious Case of Evangelist Pat Robertson | Winter Watch When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the states, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. Excerpts from Ratification Documents of Virginia a Ratifying Conventions>New York Ratifying Convention. States' rights (South) vs. nationalism (North). This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. Create your account, 15 chapters | . - Women's Rights Facts & Significance, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points: Definition, Speech & Summary, Fireside Chats: Definition & Significance, JFK's New Frontier: Definition, Speech & Program. Competing Conceptions of Union and Ordered Liberty in The Webster-Hayne For Calhoun, see the Speech on Abolition Petitions and the Speech on the Oregon Bill. . Hayne was a great orator, filled with fiery passion and eloquent prose. 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. . This government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. 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." . . One of those was the Webster-Hayne debate, a series of unplanned speeches presented before the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830. Senator Foote, of Connecticut, submitted a proposition inquiring into the expediency of limiting the sales of public lands to those already in the market. All regulated governments, all free governments, have been broken up by similar disinterested and well-disposed interference! . 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. It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to bear up any other than free men. In 1830, the federal government collected few taxes and had two primary sources of revenue. . Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. The scene depicted in the painting is Webster concluding his debate with Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. The theory that the states' may vote against unfair laws. APUSH CH 9 Flashcards | Quizlet What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion. Well, you're not alone. Available in hard copy and for download. 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. Nullification Crisis | American Battlefield Trust To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. 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. . The speech is also known for the line Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable, which would subsequently become the state motto of North Dakota, appearing on the state seal. Consolidation!that perpetual cry, both of terror and delusionconsolidation!