A speech by Louisiana Senator Edward Livingston, however, neatly explains how American nationhood encompasses elements of both Webster and Hayne's ideas. 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? The idea of a strong federal government The ability of the people to revolt against an unfair government The theory that the states' may vote against unfair laws The role of the president in commanding the government 2 See answers Advertisement holesstanham Answer: Francis O. J. Smith to Secretary of State Dan Special Message to the House of Representatives, Special Message to Congress on Mexican Relations. Speech on Assuming Office of the President. Correspondence Between Anthony Butler and Presiden State of the Union Address Part II (1846). I did not utter a single word, which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 26 and 27, 1830. . . Let's start by looking at the United States around 1830. 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. . The debate continued, in some ways not being fully settled until the completion of the Civil War affirmed the power of the federal government to preserve the Union over the sovereignty of the states to leave it. The militia of the state will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. . . 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. 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.. The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . The Northwest Ordinance. For all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in anything said or intimated by me. 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. Webster was eloquent, he was educated, he was witty, and he was a staunch defender of American liberty. They switched from a. the tariff of 1828 to national power . I am a Unionist, and in this sense a national Republican. 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.. 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. Sir, the opinion which the honorable gentleman maintains, is a notion, founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this government, and of the foundation on which it stands. . All rights reserved. State governments were in control of their own affairs and expected little intervention from the federal government. . All regulated governments, all free governments, have been broken up by similar disinterested and well-disposed interference! . . Liberty has been to them the greatest of calamities, the heaviest of curses. The heated speeches were unplanned and stemmed from the debate over a resolution by Connecticut Senator Samuel A. By means of missionaries and political tracts, the scheme was in a great measure successful. All of these contentious topics were touched upon in Webster and Hayne's nine day long debate. 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 . . 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. The Webster-Hayne debate laid out key issues faced by the Senate in the 1820s and 1830s. The growing support for nullification was quite obvious during the days of the Jackson Administration, as events such as the Webster-Hayne Debate, Tariff of 1832, Order of Nullification, and Worcester v. Georgia all made the tension grow between the North and the South. It is the common pretense. It was a speech delivered before a crowded auditory, and loud were the Southern exultations that he was more than a match for Webster. It was plenary then, and never having been surrendered, must be plenary now. 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. Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. The honorable member himself is not, I trust, and can never be, one of these. 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? 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. Congress could only recommendtheir acts were not of binding force, till the states had adopted and sanctioned them. It is the servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different wills and different purposes, and yet bound to obey all. . Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. . Now, I wish to be informedhowthis state interference is to be put in practice, without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. If I could, by a mere act of my will, put at the disposal of the federal government any amount of treasure which I might think proper to name, I should limit the amount to the means necessary for the legitimate purposes of the government. But I take leave of the subject. What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? . Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 27, 1830. . This statement, though strong, is no stronger than the strictest truth will warrant. 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. . Several state governments or courts, some in the north, had espoused the idea of nullification prior to 1828. . These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened . . foote wanted to stop surveying lands until they could sell the ones already looked at The United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. 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. The answer is Daniel Webster, one of the greatest orators in US Senate history, a successful attorney and Senator from Massachusetts and a complex and enigmatic man. Available in hard copy and for download. . Hayne quotes from the Virginia Resolution (1798), authored by Thomas Jefferson, to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). . Sheidley, Harlow W. "The Wester-Hayne Debate: Recasting New England's Sectionalism", Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 179899, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WebsterHayne_debate&oldid=1135315190, This page was last edited on 23 January 2023, at 22:54. This seemed like an Eastern spasm of jealousy at the progress of the West. Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason thus. sir, this is but the old story. The United States, under the Constitution and federal government, was a single, unified nation, not a coalition of sovereign states. 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. . If the government of the United States be the agent of the state governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling it; if it be the agent of the people, then the people alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or reform it. . 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. Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Breckinridge Facti (Southern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. He tells us, we have heard much, of late, about consolidation; that it is the rallying word for all who are endeavoring to weaken the Union by adding to the power of the states. But consolidation, says the gentleman, was the very object for which the Union was formed; and in support of that opinion, he read a passage from the address of the president of the Convention[3] to Congress (which he assumes to be authority on his side of the question.) . 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. 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. | 12 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. 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. Jackson himself would raise a national toast for 'the Union' later that year. Well, it's important to remember that the nation was still young and much different than what we think of today. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll hopefully stay awake until the end of the lesson. What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? 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 . 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. Rachel Venter is a recent graduate of Metropolitan State University of Denver. 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, 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. When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. . 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. But the topic which became the leading feature of the whole debate and gave it an undying interest was that of nullification, in which Hayne and Webster came forth as chief antagonists. Far, indeed, in my wishes, very far distant be the day, when our associated and fraternal stripes shall be severed asunder, and when that happy constellation under which we have risen to so much renown, shall be broken up, and be seen sinking, star after star, into obscurity and night! This means that South Carolina is essentially its own nation, Georgia is its own nation, and so on. 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. This was the tenor of Webster's speech, and nobly did the country respond to it. Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? 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. 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 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 will co-operate with the feelings of patriotism to induce a state to avoid any measures calculated to endanger that connection. Enveloping all of these changes was an ever-growing tension over the economy, as southern states firmly defended slavery and northern states advocated for a more industrial, slave-free market. Connecticut's proposal was an attempt to slow the growth of the nation, control westward expansion, and bolster the federal government's revenue. 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. The scene depicted in the painting is Webster concluding his debate with Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. . . . 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. When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the states, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. His speech was indeed a powerful one of its eloquence and personality. They will not destroy it, they will not impair itthey will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! Hayne quotes from Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, December 26, 1825, https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-william-branch-giles/?_sft_document_author=thomas-jefferson. 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. . . Daniel webster (ma) and sen. Hayne of . . 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. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Hayne's few but zealous partizans shielded him still, and South Carolina spoke with pride of him. 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. First, New England was vindicated. Mr. Webster arose, and, in conclusion, said: A few words, Mr. President, on this constitutional argument, which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstruct. . See Genesis 9:2027. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the states, as states, were parties to it. We met it as a practical question of obligation and duty. That's what was happening out West. It is, sir, the peoples Constitution, the peoples government; made for the people; made by the people; and answerable to the people. 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. . They had burst forth from arguments about a decision by Connecticut Senator Samuel Foote. Most are forgettable, to put it charitably. This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) | Case, Significance & Summary. Well, let's look at the various parts. The Webster-Hayne debate, which again was just one section of this greater discussion in the Senate, is traditionally considered to have begun when South Carolina senator Robert Y. Hayne stood to argue against Connecticut's proposal, accusing the northeastern states of trying to stall development of the West so that southern agricultural interests couldn't expand. The measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin.

How Far Is Emporia Va From Richmond Va, Where To Find Ni Ihau Shells On Kauai, Shuttle To Allegiant Stadium, Bisquick Chicken And Dumplings, Is Pedro Lopez Still Alive, Articles W