. 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. 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. 1830's APUSH Flashcards | Quizlet And what has been the consequence? 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. 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. . . . . He must say to his followers [members of the state militia], defend yourselves with your bayonets; and this is warcivil war. It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. 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. The gentleman has made an eloquent appeal to our hearts in favor of union. Correct answers: 2 question: Which of the following is the best definition of a hypothesis? Webster-Hayne Debate 1830, an unplanned series of speeches in the Senate, during which Robert Hayne of South Carolina interpreted the Constitution as little more than a treaty between sovereign states, and Daniel Webster expressed the concept of the United States as one nation. 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. . All of these contentious topics were touched upon in Webster and Hayne's nine day long debate. 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. Every scheme or contrivance by which rulers are able to procure the command of money by means unknown to, unseen or unfelt by, the people, destroys this security. Web hardcover $30.00 paperback $17.00 kindle nook book ibook. Webster's second reply to Hayne, in January 1830, became a famous defense of the federal union: "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable." Just beneath the surface of this debate lay the elements of the developing sectional crisis between North and South. Daniel Webster stood as a ready and formidable opponent from the north who, at different stages in his career, represented both the states of New Hampshire and Massachusetts. This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government, and the source of its power. 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. . . U.S. Senate: The Most Famous Senate Speech If these opinions be thought doubtful, they are, nevertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. They had burst forth from arguments about a decision by Connecticut Senator Samuel Foote. 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. Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster's "Second Reply" to South Carolina Senator Robert Y. Hayne has long been thought of as a great oratorical celebration of American Nationalism in a period of sectional conflict. . . . . 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. . 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. But I take leave of the subject. 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. Rather, the debate eloquently captured the ideas and ideals of Northern and Southern representatives of the time, highlighting and summarizing the major issues of governance of the era. Well, you're not alone. . Speech on Assuming Office of the President. Their own power over their own instrument remains. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 25, 1830. . 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. The Hayne-Webster Debate was an unplanned series of speeches in the Senate, during which Robert Hayne of South Carolina interpreted the Constitution as little more than a treaty between sovereign states, and Daniel Webster expressed the concept of the United States as one nation. The next day, however, Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster rose with his reply, and the northern states knew they had found their champion. Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . A speech by Louisiana Senator Edward Livingston, however, neatly explains how American nationhood encompasses elements of both Webster and Hayne's ideas. Northern states intended to strengthen the federal government, binding the states in the union under one supreme law, and eradicating the use of slave labor in the rapidly growing nation. . Having thus distinctly stated the points in dispute between the gentleman and myself, I proceed to examine them. . . . Webster rose the next day in his seat to make his reply. . 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. Go to these cities now, and ask the question. Webster-Hayne Debate. 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. . He must cut it with his sword. . You see, to the south, the Constitution was essentially a treaty signed between sovereign states. . . . [Its leader] would have a knot before him, which he could not untie. 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. He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. Webster believed that the Constitution should be viewed as a binding document between the United States rather than an agreement between sovereign states. Thirty years before the Civil War broke out, disunion appeared to be on the horizon with the Nullification Crisis. But his standpoint was purely local and sectional. Correspondence Between Anthony Butler and Presiden State of the Union Address Part II (1846). An accomplished politician, Hayne was an eloquent orator who enthralled his audiences. The Webster-Hayne Debate - 1830 - YouTube This statement, though strong, is no stronger than the strictest truth will warrant. The debaters were Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. An equally. Prejudice Not Natural: The American Colonization "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July? . 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. In 1830, the federal government collected few taxes and had two primary sources of revenue. One of those was the Webster-Hayne debate, a series of unplanned speeches presented before the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830. 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. The main issue of the Webster-Hayne Debate was the nature of the country that had been created by the Constitution. . Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. The militia of the state will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. 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. . . . 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. Mr. Webster arose, and, in conclusion, said: A few words, Mr. President, on this constitutional argument, which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstruct. . . It is the common pretense. Inflamed and mortified at this repulse, Hayne soon returned to the assault, primed with a two-day speech, which at great length vaunted the patriotism of South Carolina and bitterly attacked New England, dwelling particularly upon her conduct during the late war. Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? I shrink almost instinctively from a course, however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feelings, and sectional jealousies. The growing support for nullification was quite obvious during the days of the Jackson Administration, as events such as the Webster-Hayne Debate, Tariff of 1832, Order of Nullification, and Worcester v. Georgia all made the tension grow between the North and the South. But, sir, we will pass over all this. These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened . The Webster-Hayne debate concluded with Webster's ringing endorsement of "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable." In contrast, Hayne espoused the radical states' rights doctrine of nullification, believing that a state could prevent a federal law from being enforced within its borders. . . The people had had quite enough of that kind of government, under the Confederacy. . This will co-operate with the feelings of patriotism to induce a state to avoid any measures calculated to endanger that connection. Well, the southern states were infuriated. . In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. Next, the Union was held up to view in all its strength, symmetry, and integrity, reposing in the ark of the Constitution, no longer an experiment, as in the days when Hamilton and Jefferson contended for shaping its course, but ordained and established by and for the people, to secure the blessings of liberty to all posterity. It was of a partizan and censorious character and drew nearly all the chief senators out. . . I regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest of evils, both moral and political. 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. New England, the Union, and the Constitution in its integrity, all were triumphantly vindicated. Who Won the Webster-Hayne Debate of 1830? - Abbeville Institute The Hayne-Webster Debate - Constitution.org We will not look back to inquire whether our fathers were guiltless in introducing slaves into this country. 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.. The Webster-Hayne Debates | Teaching American History [2] We deal in no abstractions. As a pious son of Federalism, Webster went the full length of the required defense. In coming to the consideration of the next great question, what ought to be the future policy of the government in relation to the public lands? 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. Sir, when the gentleman provokes me to such a conflict, I meet him at the threshold. 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. to expose them to the temptations inseparable from the direction and control of a fund which might be enlarged or diminished almost at pleasure, without imposing burthens upon the people? To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. Francis O. J. Smith to Secretary of State Dan Special Message to the House of Representatives, Special Message to Congress on Mexican Relations. . . 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. 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. Southern ships and Southern sailors were not the instruments of bringing slaves to the shores of America, nor did our merchants reap the profits of that accursed traffic.. I am a Unionist, and in this sense a national Republican. 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. . And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentlemans doctrine a little into its practical application. . 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. Hayne launched his confident javelin at the New England States. 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. . I understand him to insist, that if the exigency of the case, in the opinion of any state government, require it, such state government may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the general government, which it deems plainly and palpably unconstitutional. Differences between Northern and Southern ideas of good governance, which eventually led to the American Civil War, were beginning to emerge. 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? . Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 26 and 27, 1830. If the federal government, in all or any of its departments, are to prescribe the limits of its own authority; and the states are bound to submit to the decision, and are not to be allowed to examine and decide for themselves, when the barriers of the Constitution shall be overleaped, this is practically a government without limitation of powers; the states are at once reduced to mere petty corporations, and the people are entirely at your mercy. 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. South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification 1832 | Crisis, Cause & Issues. Some of Webster's personal friends had felt nervous over what appeared to them too hasty a period for preparation. Explore the Webster-Hayne debate. What interest, asks he, has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio? Sir, this very question is full of significance. Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Breckinridge Facti (Southern) Democratic Party Platform Committee.