Wnba Viewership By Gender, Faze Banks Massachusetts, Mackenzie Childs Teapot, Million Dollar Plumber Success Academy Login, Articles W

. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you 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.. Consolidation, like the tariff, grates upon his ear. Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? It is the servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different wills and different purposes, and yet bound to obey all. I feel like its a lifeline. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the states, as states, were parties to it. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. 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. . . 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, that the ultimate power of judging of the constitutional extent of its own authority, is not lodged exclusively in the general government, or any branch of it; but that, on the contrary, the states may lawfully decide for themselves, and each state for itself, whether, in a given case, the act of the general government transcends its power. . And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentlemans doctrine a little into its practical application. Judiciary Act of 1801 | Overview, History & Significance, General Ulysses S. Grant Takes Charge: His Strategic Plan for Ending the War. 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. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. The Senate debates between Whig Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Democrat Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina in January 1830 started out as a disagreement over the sale of Western lands and turned into one of the most famous verbal contests in American history. This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government, and the source of its power. Hayne maintained that the states retained the authority to nullify federal law, Webster that federal law expressed the will of the American people and could not be nullified by a minority of the people in a state. 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. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. . It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. Hayne argued that the sovereign and independent states had created the Union to promote their particular interests. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. Hayne maintained that the states retained the authority to nullify federal law, Webster that federal law expressed the will of the American people and could not be nullified by a minority of the people in a state. It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. Webster and the North treated it as binding the states together as a single union. 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? They had burst forth from arguments about a decision by Connecticut Senator Samuel Foote. Webster spoke in favor of the proposed pause of federal surveyance of western land, representing the North's interest in selling the western land, which had already been surveyed. In our contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same country; states, united under the same general government, having interests, common, associated, intermingled. Webster argued that the American people had created the Union to promote the good of the whole. I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. 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. Well, the southern states were infuriated. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches delivered before the Senate in 1830. . 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 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. 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 debate exposed the critically different understandings of the nature of the American. He accused them of a desire to check the growth of the West in the interests of protection. 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 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. . . 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. . . He must say to his followers [members of the state militia], defend yourselves with your bayonets; and this is warcivil war. 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. These irreconcilable views of national supremacy and state sovereignty framed the constitutional struggle that led to Civil War thirty years later. . Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. . . Foot calling for the temporary suspension of further land surveying until land already on the market was sold (to effectively stop the introduction of new lands onto the market). Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. Hayne launched his confident javelin at the New England States. Before his term as a U.S. senator, Hayne had served as a state senator, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, South Carolina's Speaker of the House, and Attorney General of South Carolina. He was a lawyer turned congressional representative who eventually worked his way to the office of U.S. Secretary of State. God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise. 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. . . If they mean merely this, then, no doubt, the public lands as well as everything else in which we have a common interest, tends to consolidation; and to this species of consolidation every true American ought to be attached; it is neither more nor less than strengthening the Union itself. It was of a partizan and censorious character and drew nearly all the chief senators out. What interest, asks he, has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio? Sir, this very question is full of significance. 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. 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! She has a BA in political science. Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. 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. One was through protective tariffs, high taxes on imports and exports. If these opinions be thought doubtful, they are, nevertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? It is one from which we are not disposed to shrink, in whatever form or under whatever circumstances it may be pressed upon us. flashcard sets. At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . . . 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. 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. . Let us look at the historical facts. . sir, this is but the old story. 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. The discussion took a wide range, going back to topics that had agitated the country before the Constitution was formed. . Consolidation!that perpetual cry, both of terror and delusionconsolidation! For all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in anything said or intimated by me. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Senator Daniel Webster] has gone out of his way to pass a high eulogium on the state of Ohio. . 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. . 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. We had no other general government. In this moment in American history, the federal government had relatively little power. This statement, though strong, is no stronger than the strictest truth will warrant. 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: Create your account. They ordained such a government; they gave it the name of a Constitution, and therein they established a distribution of powers between this, their general government, and their several state governments. What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion. Compare And Contrast The Tension Between North And South. 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. . . The great debate, which culminated in Hayne's encounter with Webster, came about in a somewhat casual way. States' rights (South) vs. nationalism (North). Webster was eloquent, he was educated, he was witty, and he was a staunch defender of American liberty. Sir, it is because South Carolina loves the Union, and would preserve it forever, that she is opposing now, while there is hope, those usurpations of the federal government, which, once established, will, sooner or later, tear this Union into fragments. . . All rights reserved. Webster's articulation of the concept of the Union went on to shape American attitudes about the federal government. Pet Banks History & Effects | What are Pet Banks? . Hayne quotes from the Virginia Resolution (1798), authored by Thomas Jefferson, to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). 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. The other way was through the sale of federally-owned land to private citizens. 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. It has been said that Hayne was Calhoun's sword and buckler and that he returned to the contest refreshed each morning by nightly communions with the Vice-President, drawing auxiliary supplies from the well-stored arsenal of his powerful and subtle mind. . . 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.