. 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. I propose to consider it, and to compare it with the Constitution. . In this regard, Webster anticipated an argument that Abraham Lincoln made in his First Inaugural Address (1861). MTEL Speech: Notable Debates & Speeches in U.S. History, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858: Summary & Significance, Psychological Research & Experimental Design, All Teacher Certification Test Prep Courses, The Significance of Daniel Webster's Argument, MTEL Speech: Principles of Argument & Debate, MTEL Speech: Understanding Persuasive Communication, MTEL Speech: Public Argument in Democratic Societies. . . lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. 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. . This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in the Convention to be less rigid, on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected.. To them, this was a scheme to give the federal government more control over the cost of land by creating a scarcity. 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. Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Breckinridge Facti (Southern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. 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.. . It is one from which we are not disposed to shrink, in whatever form or under whatever circumstances it may be pressed upon us. 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. Pet Banks History & Effects | What are Pet Banks? . 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. But his calm, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. The United States, under the Constitution and federal government, was a single, unified nation, not a coalition of sovereign states. 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. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 19, 1830. Now that was a good debate! She has worked as a university writing consultant for over three years. It would be equally fatal to the sovereignty and independence of the states. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. Ostend Manifesto of 1854 Overview & Purpose | What was the Ostend Manifesto? . 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. 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. I deem far otherwise of the Union of the states; and so did the Framers of the Constitution themselves. I now proceed to show that it is perfectly safe, and will practically have no effect but to keep the federal government within the limits of the Constitution, and prevent those unwarrantable assumptions of power, which cannot fail to impair the rights of the states, and finally destroy the Union itself. . . 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. . 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. This means that South Carolina is essentially its own nation, Georgia is its own nation, and so on. The heated speeches were unplanned and stemmed from the debate over a resolution by Connecticut Senator Samuel A. They will not destroy it, they will not impair itthey will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! . Hayne entered the U.S. Senate in 1823 and soon became prominent as a spokesman for the South and for the . But his reply was gathered from the choicest arguments and the most decadent thoughts that had long floated through his brain while this crisis was gathering; and bringing these materials together in a lucid and compact shape, he calmly composed and delivered before another crowded and breathless auditory a speech full of burning passages, which will live as long as the American Union, and the grandest effort of his life. 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. . To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. Enrolling in a course lets you earn progress by passing quizzes and exams. There was no winner or loser in the Webster-Hayne debate. Hayne argued that the sovereign and independent states had created the Union to promote their particular interests. 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. The debaters were Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. The impression which has gone abroad, of the weakness of the South, as connected with the slave question, exposes us to such constant attacks, has done us so much injury, and is calculated to produce such infinite mischiefs, that I embrace the occasion presented by the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts, to declare that we are ready to meet the question promptly and fearlessly. That's what was happening out West. It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. Webster-Hayne Debate. 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. Webster's articulation of the concept of the Union went on to shape American attitudes about the federal government. 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. 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. 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. Hayne, South Carolina's foremost Senator, was the chosen champion; and the cause of his State, both in its right and wrong sides, could have found no abler exponent while [Vice President] Calhoun's official station kept him from the floor. Connecticut's proposal was an attempt to slow the growth of the nation, control westward expansion, and bolster the federal government's revenue. [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. What can I say? Daniel webster (ma) and sen. Hayne of . Having thus distinctly stated the points in dispute between the gentleman and myself, I proceed to examine them. Go to these cities now, and ask the question. copyright 2003-2023 Study.com. It is the common pretense. Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. . He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. 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. we find the most opposite and irreconcilable opinions between the two parties which I have before described. . 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. . . States' rights (South) vs. nationalism (North). .Readers will finish the book with a clear idea of the reason Webster's "Reply" became so influential in its own day. The real significance of this debate was in each man's interpretation of the United States Constitution. So soon as the cessions were obtained, it became necessary to make provision for the government and disposition of the territory . . It was motivated by a dispute over the continued sale of western lands, an important source of revenue for the federal government. 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. Religious Views: Letter to the Editor of the Illin Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Douglas Faction), (Northern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. The militia of the state will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. For the next several days, the men traded speeches which contemporaries of the time described as the greatest orations ever delivered in the Senate. . This is the sense in which the Framers of the Constitution use the word consolidation; and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. Available in hard copy and for download. 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. Correspondence Between Anthony Butler and Presiden State of the Union Address Part II (1846). . Allow me to say, as a preliminary remark, that I call this the South Carolina doctrine, only because the gentleman himself has so denominated it. 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 . 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. Record of the Organization and Proceedings of The Massachusetts Lawmakers Investigate Working Condit State (Colonial) Legislatures>Massachusetts State Legislature. . . Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as hardly a good. They have agreed, that certain specific powers shall be exercised by the federal government; but the moment that government steps beyond the limits of its charter, the right of the states to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them,[7] is as full and complete as it was before the Constitution was formed. The Webster-Hayne debate, which again was just one section of this greater discussion in the Senate, is traditionally considered to have begun when South Carolina senator Robert Y. Hayne stood to argue against Connecticut's proposal, accusing the northeastern states of trying to stall development of the West so that southern agricultural interests couldn't expand. Well, the southern states were infuriated. . 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. 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." . Excerpts from Ratification Documents of Virginia a Ratifying Conventions>New York Ratifying Convention. Consolidation!that perpetual cry, both of terror and delusionconsolidation! Battle of Fort Sumter in the Civil War | Who Won the Battle of Fort Sumter? . . This episode was used in nineteenth century America as a Biblical justification for slavery. Congress could only recommendtheir acts were not of binding force, till the states had adopted and sanctioned them. 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. . 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. While the debaters argued about slavery, the economy, protection tariffs, and western land, the real implication was the meaning of the United States Constitution. . 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. 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. But his standpoint was purely local and sectional. These irreconcilable views of national supremacy and state sovereignty framed the constitutional struggle that led to Civil War thirty years later. An equally. 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. 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 War With Mexico: Speech in the United States H What Are the Colored People Doing for Themselves? . Edited and introduced by Jason W. Stevens. . Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) | Case, Significance & Summary. 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. . 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. . . Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 26 and 27, 1830. . You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll hopefully stay awake until the end of the lesson. . . 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. . 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. It is to state, and to defend, what I conceive to be the true principles of the Constitution under which we are here assembled. . He was a lawyer turned congressional representative who eventually worked his way to the office of U.S. Secretary of State. Differences between Northern and Southern ideas of good governance, which eventually led to the American Civil War, were beginning to emerge. I shrink almost instinctively from a course, however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feelings, and sectional jealousies. 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. It was a speech delivered before a crowded auditory, and loud were the Southern exultations that he was more than a match for Webster. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. 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. I say, the right of a state to annul a law of Congress, cannot be maintained, but on the ground of the unalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. Ah! This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. . The gentleman has made an eloquent appeal to our hearts in favor of union.
t bone steaks on sale near me,
edinburgh scotland football team,
sullivan county jail arrests,