what idea was espoused with the webster hayne debatesgraphing linear inequalities worksheet

See what I mean? Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. The WebsterHayne debate was a debate in the United States between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina that took place on January 1927, 1830 on the topic of protectionist tariffs. There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of the South. . 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. Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. And, therefore, I cannot but feel regret at the expression of such opinions as the gentleman has avowed; because I think their obvious tendency is to weaken the bond of our connection. succeed. . Benton was rising in renown as the advocate not only of Western settlers but of a new theory that the public lands should be given away instead of sold to them. . And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentlemans doctrine a little into its practical application. When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. Daniel webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the. lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. Webster's description of the U.S. government as "made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people," was later paraphrased by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address in the words "government of the people, by the people, for the people." 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. . Ah! . . . . That led into a debate on the economy, in which Webster attacked the institution of slavery and Hayne labeled the policy of protectionist tariffs as the consolidation of a strong central government, which he called the greatest of evils. Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 26 and 27, 1830. . They will also better understand the debate's political context. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you . Webster-Hayne Debate book. 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. 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. 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. . The gentleman takes alarm at the sound. Is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? 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. . That's what was happening out West. The gentleman has made an eloquent appeal to our hearts in favor of union. We had no other general government. Let us look at his probablemodus operandi. The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. . It is only by a strict adherence to the limitations imposed by the Constitution on the federal government, that this system works well, and can answer the great ends for which it was instituted. . But his calm, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. . 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 entered the U.S. Senate in 1823 and soon became prominent as a spokesman for the South and for the . 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. 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 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. we find the most opposite and irreconcilable opinions between the two parties which I have before described. Tariff of 1816 History & Significance | What was the Tariff of 1816? . . He accused them of a desire to check the growth of the West in the interests of protection. "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 excited crowd which had packed the Senate chamber, filling every seat on the floor and in the galleries, and all the available standing room, dispersed after the orator's last grand apostrophe had died away in the air, with national pride throbbing at the heart. Speech on Assuming Office of the President. There was an end to all apprehension. 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? . Robert Young Hayne, (born Nov. 10, 1791, Colleton District, S.C., U.S.died Sept. 24, 1839, Asheville, N.C.), American lawyer, political leader, and spokesman for the South, best-remembered for his debate with Daniel Webster (1830), in which he set forth a doctrine of nullification. . In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. Every scheme or contrivance by which rulers are able to procure the command of money by means unknown to, unseen or unfelt by, the people, destroys this security. The other way was through the sale of federally-owned land to private citizens. One of those was the Webster-Hayne debate, a series of unplanned speeches presented before the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 27, 1830. . It was a great and salutary measure of prevention. Sir, I deprecate and deplore this tone of thinking and acting. Now, have they given away that right, or agreed to limit or restrict it in any respect? Eloquence threw open the portals of eternal day. . I will yield to no gentleman here in sincere attachment to the Union,but it is a Union founded on the Constitution, and not such a Union as that gentleman would give us, that is dear to my heart. We could not send them back to the shores from whence their fathers had been taken; their numbers forbade the thought, even if we did not know that their condition here is infinitely preferable to what it possibly could be among the barren sands and savage tribes of Africa; and it was wholly irreconcilable with all our notions of humanity to tear asunder the tender ties which they had formed among us, to gratify the feelings of a false philanthropy. . 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. . When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the states, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. . The following states came from the territory north and west of the Ohio river: Ohio (1803), Indiana (1816), Illinois (1818), Michigan (1837), Wisconsin (1848) and Minnesota (1858). Webster's second reply to Hayne, in January 1830, became a famous defense of the federal union: "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable." Just beneath the surface of this debate lay the elements of the developing sectional crisis between North and South. Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. . 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 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. It was a speech delivered before a crowded auditory, and loud were the Southern exultations that he was more than a match for Webster. Crittenden Compromise Plan & Reception | What was the Crittenden Compromise? 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. 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 Webster-Hayne debates began over one issue but quickly switched to another. Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. Create your account, 15 chapters | Thirty years before the Civil War broke out, disunion appeared to be on the horizon with the Nullification Crisis. 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). 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. 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. Let us look at the historical facts. 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. If an inquiry should ever be instituted in these matters, however, it will be found that the profits of the slave trade were not confined to the South. 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. Debate on the Constitutionality of the Mexican War, Letters and Journals from the Oregon Trail. Rush-Bagot Treaty Structure & Effects | What was the Rush-Bagot Agreement? 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. . Read reviews from world's largest community for readers. It was of a partizan and censorious character and drew nearly all the chief senators out. . . Sir, I may be singularperhaps I stand alone here in the opinion, but it is one I have long entertained, that one of the greatest safeguards of liberty is a jealous watchfulness on the part of the people, over the collection and expenditure of the public moneya watchfulness that can only be secured where the money is drawn by taxation directly from the pockets of the people. 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. . [O]pinions were expressed yesterday on the general subject of the public lands, and on some other subjects, by the gentleman from South Carolina [Senator Robert Hayne], so widely different from my own, that I am not willing to let the occasion pass without some reply. Connecticut and other northeastern states were worried about the pace of growth and wanted to slow this down. Liberty has been to them the greatest of calamities, the heaviest of curses. . | 12 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. Now, I wish to be informedhowthis state interference is to be put in practice, without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. 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: 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. As sovereign states, each state could individually interpret the Constitution and even leave the Union altogether. . . . . Historians love a good debate. In the course of my former remarks, I took occasion to deprecate, as one of the greatest of evils, the consolidation of this government. A four-speech debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina, in January 1830. This statement, though strong, is no stronger than the strictest truth will warrant. This is the sum of what I understand from him, to be the South Carolina doctrine; and the doctrine which he maintains. 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. When the honorable member rose, in his first speech, I paid him the respect of attentive listening; and when he sat down, though surprised, and I must say even astonished, at some of his opinions, nothing was farther from my intention than to commence any personal warfare: and through the whole of the few remarks I made in answer, I avoided, studiously and carefully, everything which I thought possible to be construed into disrespect. 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. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. Sir, I am one of those who believe that the very life of our system is the independence of the states, and that there is no evil more to be deprecated than the consolidation of this government. 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. copyright 2003-2023 Study.com. I propose to consider it, and to compare it with the Constitution. 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. 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. The honorable member himself is not, I trust, and can never be, one of these. 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. . . Hayne argued that the sovereign and independent states had created the Union to promote their particular interests. 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. It laid the interdict against personal servitude, in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper, also, than all local constitutions. Shedding weak tears over sufferings which had existence only in their own sickly imaginations, these friends of humanity set themselves systematically to work to seduce the slaves of the South from their masters. They had burst forth from arguments about a decision by Connecticut Senator Samuel Foote. I shrink almost instinctively from a course, however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feelings, and sectional jealousies. It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. The action, the drama, the suspensewho needs the movies? Now that was a good debate! How do Webster and Hayne differ in regard to their understandings of the proper relationship among the several states and between the states and the national government? Let's start by looking at the United States around 1830. South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification 1832 | Crisis, Cause & Issues. In January 1830, a debate on the nature of sovereignty in the America. . 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. 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. It is, sir, the peoples Constitution, the peoples government; made for the people; made by the people; and answerable to the people. Drama, suspense, it's all there. Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions | Overview, Impact & Significance, Public Speaking for Teachers: Professional Development, AEPA Earth Science (AZ045): Practice & Study Guide, ORELA Early Childhood Education: Practice & Study Guide, Praxis Middle School English Language Arts (5047) Prep, MTLE Physical Education: Practice & Study Guide, ILTS Mathematics (208): Test Practice and Study Guide, MTLE Earth & Space Science: Practice & Study Guide, AEPA Business Education (NT309): Help & Review, Counselor Preparation Comprehensive Examination (CPCE): Exam Prep & Study Guide, GACE Special Education Adapted Curriculum Test I (083) Prep, GACE Special Education Adapted Curriculum Test II (084) Prep, Create an account to start this course today. You see, to the south, the Constitution was essentially a treaty signed between sovereign states. Even the revenue system of this country, by which the whole of our pecuniary resources are derived from indirect taxation, from duties upon imports, has done much to weaken the responsibility of our federal rulers to the people, and has made them, in some measure, careless of their rights, and regardless of the high trust committed to their care. Having thus distinctly stated the points in dispute between the gentleman and myself, I proceed to examine them. 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. The United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. . . But, sir, we will pass over all this. 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? 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. New England, the Union, and the Constitution in its integrity, all were triumphantly vindicated. . This would have been the case even if no positive provision to that effect had been inserted in that instrument. This seemed like an Eastern spasm of jealousy at the progress of the West. 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 people had had quite enough of that kind of government, under the Confederacy. Representatives of the northern states were concerned by the rapid growth of the nation; just 27 years earlier, the Louisiana Purchase had nearly doubled the size of the nation, and the newly elected President Andrew Jackson was hungry for more territory. . Well, let's look at the various parts. . Webster and the northern states saw the Constitution as binding the individual states together as a single union. So what was this debate really about? 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 . But I do not admit that, under the Constitution, and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a state government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever.

Chaminade Basketball Coach, Kipp Norcal Salary Schedule, 2005 Lsu Women's Basketball Roster, Keller Williams Listing Presentation Template, Articles W

what idea was espoused with the webster hayne debates
Posts relacionados

• No hay posts relacionados