flashcard sets. 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. Most are forgettable, to put it charitably. Sir, we will not stop to inquire whether the black man, as some philosophers have contended, is of an inferior race, nor whether his color and condition are the effects of a curse inflicted for the offences of his ancestors. For the next several days, the men traded speeches which contemporaries of the time described as the greatest orations ever delivered in the Senate. succeed. Understand the 1830 debate's significance through an overview of issues of the Constitution, the Union, and state sovereignty. 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. 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. 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. It was plenary then, and never having been surrendered, must be plenary now. . Debate on the Constitutionality of the Mexican War, Letters and Journals from the Oregon Trail. Webster argued that the American people had created the Union to promote the good of the whole. We met it as a practical question of obligation and duty. It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. 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.
Webster-Hayne Debates, 1830 - Bill of Rights Institute . The gentleman has made an eloquent appeal to our hearts in favor of union.
1830's APUSH Flashcards | Quizlet 1. emigration the movement of people from one place to another 2. immigration a situation in which resources are being used up at a faster rate than they can be replenished 3. migration the leaving of one's homeland to settle in a new place 4. overpopulation the movement of people to a new country 5. sustainable development a situation in which the birth rate is not sufficient to replace the .
Andrew Jackson & the Nullification Crisis | The Hermitage 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. 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 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.
Webster and Hayne on the American Constitution Webster and the northern states saw the Constitution as binding the individual states together as a single union. In contrasting the state of Ohio with Kentucky, for the purpose of pointing out the superiority of the former, and of attributing that superiority to the existence of slavery, in the one state, and its absence in the other, I thought I could discern the very spirit of the Missouri question[1] intruded into this debate, for objects best known to the gentleman himself. Some of Webster's personal friends had felt nervous over what appeared to them too hasty a period for preparation. Webster was eloquent, he was educated, he was witty, and he was a staunch defender of American liberty. - 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.
Competing Conceptions of Union and Ordered Liberty in I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. What followed, the Webster Hayne debate, was one of the most famous exchanges in Senate history. 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. lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. 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). I did not utter a single word, which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. 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. The Webster-Hayne debate was a famous debate in the United States between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina.It happened on January 19-27, 1830. This episode was used in nineteenth century America as a Biblical justification for slavery. Well, you're not alone. . . Thirty years before the Civil War broke out, disunion appeared to be on the horizon with the Nullification Crisis. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. The whole form and structure of the federal government, the opinions of the Framers of the Constitution, and the organization of the state governments, demonstrate that though the states have surrendered certain specific powers, they have not surrendered their sovereignty. Noah grew a vineyard, got drunk on wine and lay naked. The debaters were Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. 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. 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. 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?
Webster-Hayne debate - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia President John Quincy Adams and the Election of 1824. The gentleman takes alarm at the sound. It was motivated by a dispute over the continued sale of western lands, an important source of revenue for the federal government. The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States H What Are the Colored People Doing for Themselves? . . Daniel Webster argued against nullification (the idea that states could disobey federal laws) arguing in favor of a strong federal government which would bind the states together under the Constitution. His speech was indeed a powerful one of its eloquence and personality. 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. 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. He must say to his followers [members of the state militia], defend yourselves with your bayonets; and this is warcivil war.
The Curious Case of Evangelist Pat Robertson | Winter Watch 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. . . [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. 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. 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. Webster and the North treated it as binding the states together as a single union. 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. 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. 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. Besides that, however, the federal government was still figuring out its role in American society. . I'm imagining that your answer is probably 'I do.' Webster-Hayne Debate. Create your account. 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. . 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. In 1830, the federal government collected few taxes and had two primary sources of revenue. 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. An error occurred trying to load this video. 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. I regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest of evils, both moral and political. Crittenden Compromise Plan & Reception | What was the Crittenden Compromise? . These irreconcilable views of national supremacy and state sovereignty framed the constitutional struggle that led to Civil War thirty years later. 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? Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason thus. Mr. Webster arose, and, in conclusion, said: A few words, Mr. President, on this constitutional argument, which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstruct. Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of .
The Webster-Hayne Debates | Teaching American History 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. . They will not destroy it, they will not impair itthey will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! But to remove all doubt it is expressly declared, by the 10th article of the amendment of the Constitution, that the powers not delegated to the states, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.. Webster's argument that the constitution should stand as a powerful uniting force between the states rather than a treaty between sovereign states held as a key concept in America's ideas about the federal government. 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. . . sir, this is but the old story. . . . 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. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. 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! . 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. - Women's Rights Facts & Significance, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points: Definition, Speech & Summary, Fireside Chats: Definition & Significance, JFK's New Frontier: Definition, Speech & Program. we find the most opposite and irreconcilable opinions between the two parties which I have before described. Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. 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. 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. . [Its leader] would have a knot before him, which he could not untie.
Why was the Hayne-Webster debate important? - eNotes.com This is the sense in which the Framers of the Constitution use the word consolidation; and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. . . 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! The Northwest Ordinance. . 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. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 19, 1830. It is the common pretense. Sir, it is because South Carolina loves the Union, and would preserve it forever, that she is opposing now, while there is hope, those usurpations of the federal government, which, once established, will, sooner or later, tear this Union into fragments. Sir, I have had some opportunities of making comparisons between the condition of the free Negroes of the North and the slaves of the South, and the comparison has left not only an indelible impression of the superior advantages of the latter, but has gone far to reconcile me to slavery itself. If these opinions be thought doubtful, they are, nevertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. 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? Daniel Webster stood as a ready and formidable opponent from the north who, at different stages in his career, represented both the states of New Hampshire and Massachusetts. | 12
Help please? What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? The . 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. . Ham, one of Noahs sons, saw him uncovered, for which Noah cursed him by making Hams son, Canaan, a slave to Ham's brothers. This is a delicate and sensitive point, in southern feeling; and of late years it has always been touched, and generally with effect, whenever the object has been to unite the whole South against northern men, or northern measures. . Whose agent is it? 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 main issue of the Webster-Hayne Debate was the nature of the country that had been created by the Constitution. In our contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same country; states, united under the same general government, having interests, common, associated, intermingled. I feel like its a lifeline. I shrink almost instinctively from a course, however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feelings, and sectional jealousies. 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. . 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. . On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than in Mexico.
The Webster-Hayne Debate | Hopkins Press 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. Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as hardly a good. I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues.
Webster-Hayne Debate - U-S-History . And here it will be necessary to go back to the origin of the federal government. I hold it to be a popular government, erected by the people; those who administer it responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be. . . The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the states, as states, were parties to it. Liberty has been to them the greatest of calamities, the heaviest of curses. . . Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. . But his calm, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. Tariff of Abominations of 1828 | What was the Significance of the Tariff of Abominations? Daniel webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the. . 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. 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. . The United States, under the Constitution and federal government, was a single, unified nation, not a coalition of sovereign states. The idea that a state could nullify a federal law, associated with South Carolina, especially after the publication of John C. Calhouns South Carolina Exposition and Protest (1828) in response to the tariff passed in that year. He accused them of a desire to check the growth of the West in the interests of protection. 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. These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened .
Webster's Reply to Hayne - National Park Service All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. We had no other general government. Would it be safe to confide such a treasure to the keeping of our national rulers? These verses recount the first occurrence of slavery. The next day, however, Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster rose with his reply, and the northern states knew they had found their champion. . . . 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? It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to bear up any other than free men. 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.