. . And who are its enemies? . 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. Rather, the debate eloquently captured the ideas and ideals of Northern and Southern representatives of the time, highlighting and summarizing the major issues of governance of the era. . For the next several days, the men traded speeches which contemporaries of the time described as the greatest orations ever delivered in the Senate. Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitution under which we sit. Is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? Gloomy and downcast of late, Massachusetts men walked the avenue as though the fife and drum were before them. Well, let's look at the various parts. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. In January 1830, a debate on the nature of sovereignty in the American federal union occurred in the United States Senate between Senators Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina. Can any man believe, sir, that, if twenty-three millions per annum was now levied by direct taxation, or by an apportionment of the same among the states, instead of being raised by an indirect tax, of the severe effect of which few are aware, that the waste and extravagance, the unauthorized imposition of duties, and appropriations of money for unconstitutional objects, would have been tolerated for a single year? My life upon it, sir, they would not. 136 lessons 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. Who, then, Mr. President, are the true friends of the Union? 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. Nor those other words of delusion and folly,liberty first, and union afterwardsbut everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole Heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heartliberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable! . 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. 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 . That's what was happening out West. This debate exposed the critically different understandings of the nature of the American. He entered the Senate on that memorable day with a slow and stately step and took his seat as though unconscious of the loud buzz of expectant interest with which the crowded auditory greeted his appearance. 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. 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). To them, this was a scheme to give the federal government more control over the cost of land by creating a scarcity. God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. Now, I wish to be informedhowthis state interference is to be put in practice, without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. This is the true constitutional consolidation. Differences between Northern and Southern ideas of good governance, which eventually led to the American Civil War, were beginning to emerge. One of those was the Webster-Hayne debate, a series of unplanned speeches presented before the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830. A speech by Louisiana Senator Edward Livingston, however, neatly explains how American nationhood encompasses elements of both Webster and Hayne's ideas. 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. 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. For all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in anything said or intimated by me. This means that South Carolina is essentially its own nation, Georgia is its own nation, and so on. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. They will also better understand the debate's political context. . In January 1830, a debate on the nature of sovereignty in the America. We see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow. 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. This statement, though strong, is no stronger than the strictest truth will warrant. In this regard, Webster anticipated an argument that Abraham Lincoln made in his First Inaugural Address (1861). 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. 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. This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. They ordained such a government; they gave it the name of a Constitution, and therein they established a distribution of powers between this, their general government, and their several state governments. It is only regarded as a possible means of good; or on the other hand, as a possible means of evil. It would be equally fatal to the sovereignty and independence of the states. 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.Readers will finish the book with a clear idea of the reason Webster's "Reply" became so influential in its own day. 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? They switched from a. the tariff of 1828 to national power . . The heated speeches were unplanned and stemmed from the debate over a resolution by Connecticut Senator Samuel A. 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. 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.. . The debate was important because it laid out the arguments in favor of nationalism in the face of growing sectionalism. 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 . They undertook to form a general government, which should stand on a new basisnot a confederacy, not a league, not a compact between states, but a Constitution; a popular government, founded in popular election, directly responsible to the people themselves, and divided into branches, with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties. . MTEL Speech: Public Discourse & Debate in the U.S. . The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. . 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. Besides that, however, the federal government was still figuring out its role in American society. I love a good debate. 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. 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. And here it will be necessary to go back to the origin of the federal government. . Would it be safe to confide such a treasure to the keeping of our national rulers? 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. The Significance of the Frontier in American Histo South Carolinas Ordinance of Nullification. 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. On this subject, as in all others, we ask nothing of our Northern brethren but to let us alone; leave us to the undisturbed management of our domestic concerns, and the direction of our own industry, and we will ask no more. . Do they mean, or can they mean, anything more than that the Union of the states will be strengthened, by whatever continues or furnishes inducements to the people of the states to hold together? As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 88,000 Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. 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. - Women's Rights Facts & Significance, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points: Definition, Speech & Summary, Fireside Chats: Definition & Significance, JFK's New Frontier: Definition, Speech & Program. Webster pursued his objective through a rhetorical strategy that ignored Benton, the principal opponent of New England sectionalism, and that provoked Hayne into an exposition and defense of what became the South Carolina doctrine of nullification. . Mr. Webster arose, and, in conclusion, said: A few words, Mr. President, on this constitutional argument, which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstruct. 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. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. . 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. 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? It was a speech delivered before a crowded auditory, and loud were the Southern exultations that he was more than a match for Webster. ", What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?. The United States, under the Constitution and federal government, was a single, unified nation, not a coalition of 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. All rights reserved. There was no winner or loser in the Webster-Hayne debate. The Webster-Hayne Debate between New Hampshire Senator Daniel Webster and South Carolina Senator Robert Young Hayne highlighted the sectional nature of the controversy. Explore the Webster-Hayne debate. . 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. - 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. . You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll hopefully stay awake until the end of the lesson. 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. 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. Webster argued that the American people had created the Union to promote the good of the whole. On January 19, 1830, Hayne attacked the Foot Resolution and labeled the Northeasterners as selfish and unprincipled for their support of protectionism and conservative land policies. 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. 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. . 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. Now that was a good debate! 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 At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . . Foote Idea To Limit The Sale Of Public Lands In The West To New Settlers. . Be this as it may, Hayne was a ready and copious orator, a highly-educated lawyer, a man of varied accomplishments, shining as a writer, speaker, and counselor, equally qualified to draw up a bill or to advocate it, quick to memories, well fortified by wealth and marriage connections, dignified, never vulgar nor unmindful of the feelings of those with whom he mingled, Hayne moved in an atmosphere where lofty and chivalrous honor was the ruling sentiment. To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. 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. 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. In 1830, the federal government collected few taxes and had two primary sources of revenue. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the states, as states, were parties to it. . It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. 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. 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. When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. Daniel webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the. . Debate on the Constitutionality of the Mexican War, Letters and Journals from the Oregon Trail. 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. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 25, 1830. . 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. Whose agent is 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. . . I propose to consider it, and to compare it with the Constitution. . The gentleman has made an eloquent appeal to our hearts in favor of union. What interest, asks he, has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio? Sir, this very question is full of significance. The United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. . I distrust, therefore, sir, the policy of creating a great permanent national treasury, whether to be derived from public lands or from any other source. Drama, suspense, it's all there. Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. . . Webster stood in favor of Connecticut's proposal that the federal government should stop surveying western land and sell the land it had already surveyed to boost it's revenue and strengthen it's authority. I shrink almost instinctively from a course, however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feelings, and sectional jealousies. An equally. . The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions Add Song of the Spinners from the Lowell Offering. This was the tenor of Webster's speech, and nobly did the country respond to it. . Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. 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. 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. An error occurred trying to load this video. 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. 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.