Tradition Port St Lucie Fireworks, Mobile Homes For Rent In Marysville, Pa, Articles W

U.S. Senate: The Most Famous Senate Speech 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. . we find the most opposite and irreconcilable opinions between the two parties which I have before described. . The debate was on. . . . Which of the following is the best definition of a hypothesis? 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. . 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? Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. . . Webster's Reply to Hayne - National Park Service Now, have they given away that right, or agreed to limit or restrict it in any respect? The Webster-Hayne Debate: Defining Nationhood in the Early American 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. . 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. This episode was used in nineteenth century America as a Biblical justification for slavery. . It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. It is the common pretense. 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. . So they could finish selling the lands already surveyed. If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have war. It was a great and salutary measure of prevention. To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. 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. 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. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. . Whose agent is it? The gentleman has made an eloquent appeal to our hearts in favor of union. Well, it's important to remember that the nation was still young and much different than what we think of today. In 1830, the federal government collected few taxes and had two primary sources of revenue. 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. Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? 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. . 1830's APUSH Flashcards | Quizlet . . There was an end to all apprehension. 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. Webster-Hayne debate - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 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. This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government, and the source of its power. 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. The people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. 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. Would it be safe to confide such a treasure to the keeping of our national rulers? We found that we had to deal with a people whose physical, moral, and intellectual habits and character, totally disqualified them from the enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. Judiciary Act of 1801 | Overview, History & Significance, General Ulysses S. Grant Takes Charge: His Strategic Plan for Ending the War. Sir, I deprecate and deplore this tone of thinking and acting. The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States H What Are the Colored People Doing for Themselves? The Union to be preserved, while it suits local and temporary purposes to preserve it; and to be sundered whenever it shall be found to thwart such purposes. 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 debate was important because it laid out the arguments in favor of nationalism in the face of growing sectionalism. Where in these debates do we see a possible argument in defense of Constitutional secession by the states, later claimed by the Southern Confederacy before, during, and after the Civil War? a. an explanation of natural events that is well supported by scientific evidence b. a set of rules for ethical conduct during an experiment c. a statement that describes how natural events happen d. a possible answer to a scientific question Liberty has been to them the greatest of calamities, the heaviest of curses. It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. Daniel Webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the danger of the states' rights doctrine, which permitted each State to decide for itself which laws were unconstitutional, claiming it would lead to civil war. 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. Robert Young Hayne | American politician | Britannica It was motivated by a dispute over the continued sale of western lands, an important source of revenue for the federal government. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches delivered before the Senate in 1830. 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. The next day, however, Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster rose with his reply, and the northern states knew they had found their champion. 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. Hayne's few but zealous partizans shielded him still, and South Carolina spoke with pride of him. . 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. APUSH CH 9 Flashcards | Quizlet 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. One of those was the Webster-Hayne debate, a series of unplanned speeches presented before the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830. I will struggle while I have life, for our altars and our fire sides, and if God gives me strength, I will drive back the invader discomfited. Create your account. The arena selected for a first impression was the Senate, where the arch-heretic himself presided and guided the onset with his eye. . . All regulated governments, all free governments, have been broken up by similar disinterested and well-disposed interference! Sir, the very chief end, the main design, for which the whole Constitution was framed and adopted, was to establish a government that should not be obliged to act through state agency, or depend on state opinion and state discretion. Understand the 1830 debate's significance through an overview of issues of the Constitution, the Union, and state sovereignty. . . 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. . 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? Competing Conceptions of Union and Ordered Liberty in The Webster-Hayne 1824 Presidential Election, Candidates & Significance | Who Won the Election of 1824? . succeed. Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. 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. What they said I believe; fully and sincerely believe, that the Union of the states is essential to the prosperity and safety of the states. But, sir, the gentleman is mistaken. State governments were in control of their own affairs and expected little intervention from the federal government. Why was the Hayne-Webster debate important? - eNotes.com 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. 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 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. . Who, then, Mr. President, are the true friends of the Union? 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. . Senator Foote, of Connecticut, submitted a proposition inquiring into the expediency of limiting the sales of public lands to those already in the market. What can I say? 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. To them, this was a scheme to give the federal government more control over the cost of land by creating a scarcity. 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. Webster replied to his speech the next day and left not a shred of the charge, baseless as it was. The significance of Daniel Webster's argument went far beyond the immediate proposal at hand. An equally talented orator, Webster rose as the advocate of the North in the debate with his captivating reply to Hayne's initial argument. . This is the sense in which the Framers of the Constitution use the word consolidation; and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. Hayne and the South saw it as basically a treaty between sovereign states. 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 . . When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. I feel like its a lifeline. No doubt can exist, that, before the states entered into the compact, they possessed the right to the fullest extent, of determining the limits of their own powersit is incident to all sovereignty. By means of missionaries and political tracts, the scheme was in a great measure successful. It is only regarded as a possible means of good; or on the other hand, as a possible means of evil. Rush-Bagot Treaty Structure & Effects | What was the Rush-Bagot Agreement? The specific issue that sparked the Webster-Hayne debate was a proposal by the state of Connecticut which said that the federal government should halt its surveying of land west of the Mississippi and focus on selling the land it had already surveyed to private citizens. copyright 2003-2023 Study.com. 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. 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. His speech was indeed a powerful one of its eloquence and personality. 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. The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. . This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Breckinridge Facti (Southern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. Differences between Northern and Southern ideas of good governance, which eventually led to the American Civil War, were beginning to emerge. 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. Assuredly not. . | 12 We had no other general government. 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. These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened . 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. Then, in January of 1830, a senator from Connecticut introduced a proposal to the Senate stating that the federal government should stop surveying the lands west of the Mississippi River. What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? . 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. 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. Daniel webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the. By establishing justice, promoting domestic tranquility, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. This is the true reading of the Constitution. Webster and the northern states saw the Constitution as binding the individual states together as a single union. I deem far otherwise of the Union of the states; and so did the Framers of the Constitution themselves. But, sir, the task has been forced upon me, and I proceed right onward to the performance of my duty; be the consequences what they may, the responsibility is with those who have imposed upon me this necessity. Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado. . Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . Help please? What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? The It would be equally fatal to the sovereignty and independence of the states. Address to the Slaves of the United States. . And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentlemans doctrine a little into its practical application. Webster-Hayne debate - Wikisource, the free online library .Readers will finish the book with a clear idea of the reason Webster's "Reply" became so influential in its own day. Hayne, Robert Young | South Carolina Encyclopedia . And who are its enemies? Let us look at the historical facts. The states cannot now make war; they cannot contract alliances; they cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin money. . Go to these cities now, and ask the question. We look upon the states, not as separated, but as united. Excerpts from Ratification Documents of Virginia a Ratifying Conventions>New York Ratifying Convention. Is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? 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 this regard, Webster anticipated an argument that Abraham Lincoln made in his First Inaugural Address (1861). The great debate, which culminated in Hayne's encounter with Webster, came about in a somewhat casual way. This was the tenor of Webster's speech, and nobly did the country respond to it. 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. Webster rose the next day in his seat to make his reply. Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 20, 1830. It is one from which we are not disposed to shrink, in whatever form or under whatever circumstances it may be pressed upon us. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. It is to state, and to defend, what I conceive to be the true principles of the Constitution under which we are here assembled. The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . 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 . This, sir, is General Washingtons consolidation. New England, the Union, and the Constitution in its integrity, all were triumphantly vindicated. Enrolling in a course lets you earn progress by passing quizzes and exams. 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. . Daniel Webster - Facts, Career & Legacy - HISTORY . On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than in Mexico. . Webster's articulation of the concept of the Union went on to shape American attitudes about the federal government. You see, to the south, the Constitution was essentially a treaty signed between sovereign states. Between January and May 1830, twenty-one of the forty-eight senators delivered a staggering sixty-five speeches on the nature of the Union. But still, throughout American history, several debates have captured the nation's attention in a way that would make even Hollywood jealous. 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.