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. . Southern states advocated for strong, sovereign state governments, a small federal government, the western expansion of the agricultural economy, and with it, the maintenance of the institution of slavery. 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! Now, have they given away that right, or agreed to limit or restrict it in any respect? We had no other general government. At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . I wish to see no new powers drawn to the general government; but I confess I rejoice in whatever tends to strengthen the bond that unites us, and encourages the hope that our Union may be perpetual. These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened . We will not look back to inquire whether our fathers were guiltless in introducing slaves into this country. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. . MTEL Speech: Public Discourse & Debate in the U.S. . It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to bear up any other than free men. Hayne was a great orator, filled with fiery passion and eloquent prose. 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. The debate was important because it laid out the arguments in favor of nationalism in the face of growing sectionalism. 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. Visit the dark and narrow lanes, and obscure recesses, which have been assigned by common consent as the abodes of those outcasts of the worldthe free people of color. 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. . . It is, sir, the peoples Constitution, the peoples government; made for the people; made by the people; and answerable to the people. He must say to his followers [members of the state militia], defend yourselves with your bayonets; and this is warcivil war. Pet Banks History & Effects | What are Pet Banks? It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. 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. . Most assuredly, I need not say I differ with him, altogether and most widely, on that point. Foote Idea To Limit The Sale Of Public Lands In The West To New Settlers. 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. I said, only, that it was highly wise and useful in legislating for the northwestern country, while it was yet a wilderness, to prohibit the introduction of slaves: and added, that I presumed, in the neighboring state of Kentucky, there was no reflecting and intelligent gentleman, who would doubt, that if the same prohibition had been extended, at the same early period, over that commonwealth, her strength and population would, at this day, have been far greater than they are. 1824 Presidential Election, Candidates & Significance | Who Won the Election of 1824? Well, it's important to remember that the nation was still young and much different than what we think of today. 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. Ham, one of Noahs sons, saw him uncovered, for which Noah cursed him by making Hams son, Canaan, a slave to Ham's brothers. A four-speech debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina, in January 1830. For one, Hayne and Webster were arguing for the fate of the West and, in particular, whether the North or South would control western development. . It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. . First, New England was vindicated. Representatives of the northern states were concerned by the rapid growth of the nation; just 27 years earlier, the Louisiana Purchase had nearly doubled the size of the nation, and the newly elected President Andrew Jackson was hungry for more territory. Hayne launched his confident javelin at the New England States. They switched from a. the tariff of 1828 to national power . The people had had quite enough of that kind of government, under the Confederacy. 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. Historians love a good debate. 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! 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. Compare And Contrast The Tension Between North And South. These verses recount the first occurrence of slavery. Excerpts from Ratification Documents of Virginia a Ratifying Conventions>New York Ratifying Convention. The Destiny of America, Speech at the Dedication o An Address. What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? 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? Prejudice Not Natural: The American Colonization "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July? Thousands of these deluded victims of fanaticism were seduced into the enjoyment of freedom in our Northern cities. The discussion took a wide range, going back to topics that had agitated the country before the Constitution was formed. . All of these contentious topics were touched upon in Webster and Hayne's nine day long debate. This is the sense in which the Framers of the Constitution use the word consolidation; and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. It was not a Union to be torn up without bloodshed; for nerves and arteries were interwoven with its roots and tendrils, sustaining the lives and interests of twelve million inhabitants. . 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. This was the tenor of Webster's speech, and nobly did the country respond to it. 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. 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]. Let us look at his probablemodus operandi. 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. . See Genesis 9:2027. Who doesn't? Edited and introduced by Jason W. Stevens. . . We love to dwell on that union, and on the mutual happiness which it has so much promoted, and the common renown which it has so greatly contributed to acquire. In January 1830, a debate on the nature of sovereignty in the America. He was dressed with scrupulous care, in a blue coat with metal buttons, a buff vest rounding over his full abdomen, and his neck encircled with a white cravat. I am opposed, therefore, in any shape, to all unnecessary extension of the powers, or the influence of the Legislature or Executive of the Union over the states, or the people of the states; and, most of all, I am opposed to those partial distributions of favors, whether by legislation or appropriation, which has a direct and powerful tendency to spread corruption through the land; to create an abject spirit of dependence; to sow the seeds of dissolution; to produce jealousy among the different portions of the Union, and finally to sap the very foundations of the government itself. . 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. Between January and May 1830, twenty-one of the forty-eight senators delivered a staggering sixty-five speeches on the nature of the Union. 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. Assuredly not. Webster argued that the American people had created the Union to promote the good of the whole. On January 19, 1830, Hayne attacked the Foot Resolution and labeled the Northeasterners as selfish and unprincipled for their support of protectionism and conservative land policies. South Carolina nullification was now coming in sight, and a celebrated debate that belongs to the first session exposed its claims and its fallacies to the country. . They will also better understand the debate's political context. 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. It was of a partizan and censorious character and drew nearly all the chief senators out. It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. . 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. 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. 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. Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. He accused them of a desire to check the growth of the West in the interests of protection. Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural So "The Whole Affair Seems the Work of a Madman", John Brown and the Principle of Nonresistance. . I am a Unionist, and in this sense a national Republican. 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. Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. ", What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?. Daniel webster (ma) and sen. Hayne of . Go to these cities now, and ask the question. 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. By means of missionaries and political tracts, the scheme was in a great measure successful. . Wilmot Proviso of 1846: Overview & Significance | What was the Wilmot Proviso? . The debate was on. 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. All regulated governments, all free governments, have been broken up by similar disinterested and well-disposed interference! Ah! It is worth noting that in the course of the debate, on the very floor of the Senate, both Hayne and Webster raised the specter of civil war 30 years before it commenced. Lincoln-Douglas Debates History & Significance | What Was the Lincoln-Douglas Debate? He was a lawyer turned congressional representative who eventually worked his way to the office of U.S. Secretary of State. . 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. There yet remains to be performed, Mr. President, by far the most grave and important duty, which I feel to be devolved on me, by this occasion. Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado. But it was the honor of a caste; and the struggling bread-winners of society, the great commonalty, he little studied or understood. So they could finish selling the lands already surveyed. 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. . Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 19, 1830. Shedding weak tears over sufferings which had existence only in their own sickly imaginations, these friends of humanity set themselves systematically to work to seduce the slaves of the South from their masters. 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. 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. 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? 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? Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. He had allowed himself but a single night from eve to morn to prepare for a critical and crowning occasion. . Neither side can be said to have 'won' the debate, but Webster's articulation of the Union solidified for many the role of the federal government. . . 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.
Alienware Aw2521hf Best Settings For Gaming,
How Did The German Yellow Jacket Get To America,
Susan Glow Boulder,
Articles W
what idea was espoused with the webster hayne debates