Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. 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. I am a Unionist, and in this sense a national Republican. They tell us, in the letter submitting the Constitution to the consideration of the country, that, in all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true Americanthe consolidation of our Unionin which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety; perhaps our national existence. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. This feeling, always carefully kept alive, and maintained at too intense a heat to admit discrimination or reflection, is a lever of great power in our political machine. . If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have war. 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. In this moment in American history, the federal government had relatively little power. It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. . 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. [2] We deal in no abstractions. . Webster's Reply to Hayne - National Park Service . Webster-Hayne Debate - Federalism in America - CSF If this Constitution, sir, be the creature of state Legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the volitions of its creators. Which of the following is the best definition of a hypothesis? . . It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. 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? Web hardcover $30.00 paperback $17.00 kindle nook book ibook. Now that was a good debate! All of these ideas, however, are only parts of the main point. 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. Webster and the northern states saw the Constitution as binding the individual states together as a single union. Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. 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. Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Breckinridge Facti (Southern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. . . Finding our lot cast among a people, whom God had manifestly committed to our care, we did not sit down to speculate on abstract questions of theoretical liberty. The scene depicted in the painting is Webster concluding his debate with Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. But it was the honor of a caste; and the struggling bread-winners of society, the great commonalty, he little studied or understood. I love a good debate. 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. 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. - Women's Rights Facts & Significance, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points: Definition, Speech & Summary, Fireside Chats: Definition & Significance, JFK's New Frontier: Definition, Speech & Program. This was the tenor of Webster's speech, and nobly did the country respond to it. . . . An equally talented orator, Webster rose as the advocate of the North in the debate with his captivating reply to Hayne's initial argument. Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the constitutional question. 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. Let's start by looking at the United States around 1830. The 1830 WebsterHayne 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. This, sir, is General Washingtons consolidation. 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. An accomplished politician, Hayne was an eloquent orator who enthralled his audiences. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. Sir, I should fear the rebuke of no intelligent gentleman of Kentucky, were I to ask whether, if such an ordinance could have been applied to his own state, while it yet was a wilderness, and before Boone had passed the gap of the Alleghany, he does not suppose it would have contributed to the ultimate greatness of that commonwealth? It was plenary then, and never having been surrendered, must be plenary now. 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. So soon as the cessions were obtained, it became necessary to make provision for the government and disposition of the territory . Our Core Document Collection allows students to read history in the words of those who made it. Address to the People of the United States, by the What are the main points of difference between Webster and Hayne, especially on the question of the nature of the Union and the Constitution? Eloquence threw open the portals of eternal day. . . 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. . Well, it's important to remember that the nation was still young and much different than what we think of today. The great debate, which culminated in Hayne's encounter with Webster, came about in a somewhat casual way. His speech was indeed a powerful one of its eloquence and personality. 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. 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. . Winners and Losers History's Famous Debates - Medium The gentleman takes alarm at the sound. What was going on? 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 debate was important because it laid out the arguments in favor of nationalism in the face of growing sectionalism. All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives. Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as hardly a good. Who Won the Webster-Hayne Debate of 1830? - Abbeville Institute By means of missionaries and political tracts, the scheme was in a great measure successful. 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. "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.. 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 . The Webster-Hayne Debates | Teaching American History 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. Those who would confine the federal government strictly within the limits prescribed by the Constitutionwho would preserve to the states and the people all powers not expressly delegatedwho would make this a federal and not a national Unionand who, administering the government in a spirit of equal justice, would make it a blessing and not a curse. . Excerpts from Ratification Documents of Virginia a Ratifying Conventions>New York Ratifying Convention. Prejudice Not Natural: The American Colonization "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July? As a pious son of Federalism, Webster went the full length of the required defense. . 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. 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. 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. Help please? What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? The 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. . . Hayne and the South saw it as basically a treaty between sovereign states. 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. . But the feeling is without all adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists wholly groundless. 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. In 1830, the federal government collected few taxes and had two primary sources of revenue. 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. 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? 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. 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. Senator Foote, of Connecticut, submitted a proposition inquiring into the expediency of limiting the sales of public lands to those already in the market. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. Thirty years before the Civil War broke out, disunion appeared to be on the horizon with the Nullification Crisis. . . But I take leave of the subject. Address to the Slaves of the United States. Foote Idea To Limit The Sale Of Public Lands In The West To New Settlers. And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentlemans doctrine a little into its practical application. 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? I understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the states, thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the exercise of power by the general government, of checking it, and of compelling it to conform to their opinion of the extent of its powers. 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.