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. foote wanted to stop surveying lands until they could sell the ones already looked at The tendency of all these ideas and sentiments is obviously to bring the Union into discussion, as a mere question of present and temporary expediency; nothing more than a mere matter of profit and loss. - Women's Rights Facts & Significance, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points: Definition, Speech & Summary, Fireside Chats: Definition & Significance, JFK's New Frontier: Definition, Speech & Program. 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. Certainly, sir, I am, and ever have been of that opinion. I am a Unionist, and in this sense a national Republican. The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . . Well, the southern states were infuriated. 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. . Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . . . 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. . But still, throughout American history, several debates have captured the nation's attention in a way that would make even Hollywood jealous. On this subject, as in all others, we ask nothing of our Northern brethren but to let us alone; leave us to the undisturbed management of our domestic concerns, and the direction of our own industry, and we will ask no more. 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. I distrust, therefore, sir, the policy of creating a great permanent national treasury, whether to be derived from public lands or from any other source. And what has been the consequence? All of these contentious topics were touched upon in Webster and Hayne's nine day long debate. 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. Webster's "Second Reply to Hayne" was generally regarded as "the most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress."[1]. This is the sense in which the Framers of the Constitution use the word consolidation; and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. 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! Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. 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. 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. Whose agent is it? . 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. The gentleman takes alarm at the sound. . All of these ideas, however, are only parts of the main point. Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person. It develops the gentlemans whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. It laid the interdict against personal servitude, in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper, also, than all local constitutions. 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. 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. Famous Speeches by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. MTEL Speech: Ethical & Legal Communications, MTEL Speech: Delivering Effective Speeches, MTEL Speech: Using Communication Aids for Speeches, NY Regents Exam - US History and Government: Tutoring Solution, Business 104: Information Systems and Computer Applications, GED Math: Quantitative, Arithmetic & Algebraic Problem Solving, GED Social Studies: Civics & Government, US History, Economics, Geography & World, CSET Foundational-Level General Science (215) Prep, CSET English Subtests I & III (105 & 107): Practice & Study Guide, Managing Risk to Enhance & Maintain Your Health, Types of Healthcare Professionals & Delivery Systems, Consumer Health: Laws, Regulations & Agencies, The Role of School Health Advisory Councils in Texas, Teaching Sensitive or Controversial Health Issues, Calculating the Square Root of 27: How-To & Steps, Linear Transformations: Properties & Examples, Chemical Safety: Preparation, Use, Storage, and Disposal, Spectrophotometers: Definition, Uses, and Parts, What is an Autoclave? "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.. See Genesis 9:2027. Between January and May 1830, twenty-one of the forty-eight senators delivered a staggering sixty-five speeches on the nature of the Union. 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. 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. This will co-operate with the feelings of patriotism to induce a state to avoid any measures calculated to endanger that connection. . . This debate exposed the critically different understandings of the nature of the American. This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. 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 . 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? For Calhoun, see the Speech on Abolition Petitions and the Speech on the Oregon Bill. . The measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. . 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. 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. . Eloquence threw open the portals of eternal day. It would be equally fatal to the sovereignty and independence of the states. Even more pointedly, his speech reflected a decade of arguments from other Massachusetts conservatives who argued against supposed threats to New England's social order.[2]. . Get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons. Finally, sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the states will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the Constitution. They will also better understand the debate's political context. The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of the South. It was motivated by a dispute over the continued sale of western lands, an important source of revenue for the federal government. 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. She has worked as a university writing consultant for over three years. Why? Tariff of Abominations of 1828 | What was the Significance of the Tariff of Abominations? To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of unplanned speeches in the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830 between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. Nor shall I stop there. Consolidation, like the tariff, grates upon his ear. Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. The United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. 1824 Presidential Election, Candidates & Significance | Who Won the Election of 1824? As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 88,000 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. What followed, the Webster Hayne debate, was one of the most famous exchanges in Senate history. Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. . Ah! Hayne and the South saw it as basically a treaty between sovereign states. . ", What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?. But it was the honor of a caste; and the struggling bread-winners of society, the great commonalty, he little studied or understood. 136 lessons Hayne's First Speech (January 19, 1830) Webster's First Reply to Hayne (January 20, 1830) Hayne's Second Speech (January 21, 1830) Webster's Second Reply to Hayne (January 26-27, 1830) This page was last edited on 13 June 2021, at . One of those was the Webster-Hayne debate, a series of unplanned speeches presented before the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830. 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. Let us look at his probablemodus operandi. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts while he exonerates me personally from the charge, intimates that there is a party in the country who are looking to disunion. The gentleman insists that the states have no right to decide whether the constitution has been violated by acts of Congress or not,but that the federal government is the exclusive judge of the extent of its own powers; and that in case of a violation of the constitution, however deliberate, palpable and dangerous, a state has no constitutional redress, except where the matter can be brought before the Supreme Court, whose decision must be final and conclusive on the subject. 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. 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? Tariff of 1816 History & Significance | What was the Tariff of 1816? Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado. . . 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. [Its leader] would have a knot before him, which he could not untie. Enveloping all of these changes was an ever-growing tension over the economy, as southern states firmly defended slavery and northern states advocated for a more industrial, slave-free market. The United States, under the Constitution and federal government, was a single, unified nation, not a coalition of sovereign states. 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? 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. We will not look back to inquire whether our fathers were guiltless in introducing slaves into this country. In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. The Virginia Resolution asserted that when the federal government undertook the deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of powers not granted to it in the constitution, states had the right and duty to interpose their authority to prevent this evil. Besides that, however, the federal government was still figuring out its role in American society. . . Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. Our notion of things is entirely different. When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. But his standpoint was purely local and sectional. Well, you're not alone. 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. 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. Thirty years before the Civil War broke out, disunion appeared to be on the horizon with the Nullification Crisis. . 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. 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. 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? Go to these cities now, and ask the question. . 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. Webster replied to his speech the next day and left not a shred of the charge, baseless as it was. . When, however, the gentleman proceeded to contrast the state of Ohio with Kentucky, to the disadvantage of the latter, I listened to him with regret. But, sir, we will pass over all this. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. When my eyes shall be turned to behold, for the last time, the sun in Heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! 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.. He must say to his followers [members of the state militia], defend yourselves with your bayonets; and this is warcivil war. 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. That's what was happening out West. 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. As sovereign states, each state could individually interpret the Constitution and even leave the Union altogether. . 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. . Hayne quotes from the Virginia Resolution (1798), authored by Thomas Jefferson, to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the constitutional question.
Tax Products Pr1 Stimulus, Fred's Market Lunch Menu, Articles W