Ostend Manifesto of 1854 Overview & Purpose | What was the Ostend Manifesto? 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? 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. 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. He had allowed himself but a single night from eve to morn to prepare for a critical and crowning occasion. The people of the United States cherish a devotion to the Union, so pure, so ardent, that nothing short of intolerable oppression, can ever tempt them to do anything that may possibly endanger it. The Destiny of America, Speech at the Dedication o An Address. When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the states, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. I know that there are some persons in the part of the country from which the honorable member comes, who habitually speak of the Union in terms of indifference, or even of disparagement. Sir, I deprecate and deplore this tone of thinking and acting. The gentleman takes alarm at the sound. Hayne entered the U.S. Senate in 1823 and soon became prominent as a spokesman for the South and for the . Tariff of Abominations of 1828 | What was the Significance of the Tariff of Abominations? 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. . . I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. One of the most storied match-ups in Senate history, the 1830 Webster-Hayne debate began with a beef between Northeast states and Western states over a plan to restrict . . Jackson himself would raise a national toast for 'the Union' later that year. . That led into a debate on the economy, in which Webster attacked the institution of slavery and Hayne labeled the policy of protectionist tariffs as the consolidation of a strong central government, which he called the greatest of evils. 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. Ah! But his calm, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. What can I say? Finally, sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the states will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the Constitution. When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the constitutional question. We will not look back to inquire whether our fathers were guiltless in introducing slaves into this country. The debaters were Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. . 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. 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. . . 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. Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 26 and 27, 1830. 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. . It is, sir, the peoples Constitution, the peoples government; made for the people; made by the people; and answerable to the people. Who, then, Mr. President, are the true friends of the Union? It is the servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different wills and different purposes, and yet bound to obey all. On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than in Mexico. 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. Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. When the honorable member rose, in his first speech, I paid him the respect of attentive listening; and when he sat down, though surprised, and I must say even astonished, at some of his opinions, nothing was farther from my intention than to commence any personal warfare: and through the whole of the few remarks I made in answer, I avoided, studiously and carefully, everything which I thought possible to be construed into disrespect. 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: 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 specific issue that sparked the Webster-Hayne debate was a proposal by the state of Connecticut which said that the federal government should halt its surveying of land west of the Mississippi and focus on selling the land it had already surveyed to private citizens. . Get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons. . Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as hardly a good. . 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). . 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? Battle of Fort Sumter in the Civil War | Who Won the Battle of Fort Sumter? Consolidation, like the tariff, grates upon his ear. 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. You see, to the south, the Constitution was essentially a treaty signed between sovereign 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. . 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. . . 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. . Besides that, however, the federal government was still figuring out its role in American society. 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! 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? 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. Sir, I am one of those who believe that the very life of our system is the independence of the states, and that there is no evil more to be deprecated than the consolidation of this government. Pet Banks History & Effects | What are Pet Banks? The debate was on. His ideas about federalism and his interpretation of the Constitution as a document uniting the states under one supreme law were highly influential in the eyes of his contemporaries and would influence the rebuilding of the nation after the Civil War. In 1830, the federal government collected few taxes and had two primary sources of revenue. Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. 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. They attack nobody, and menace nobody. [2] We deal in no abstractions. I will yield to no gentleman here in sincere attachment to the Union,but it is a Union founded on the Constitution, and not such a Union as that gentleman would give us, that is dear to my heart. The Revelation on Celestial Marriage: Trouble Amon Hon. All rights reserved. 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! Assuredly not. It develops the gentlemans whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. Thirty years before the Civil War broke out, disunion appeared to be on the horizon with the Nullification Crisis. . Webster-Hayne Debate. Lincoln-Douglas Debates History & Significance | What Was the Lincoln-Douglas Debate? All of these contentious topics were touched upon in Webster and Hayne's nine day long debate. Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado. Are we in that condition still? 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. It would be equally fatal to the sovereignty and independence of the states. They switched from a. the tariff of 1828 to national power . Read reviews from world's largest community for readers. . How do Webster and Hayne differ in regard to their understandings of the proper relationship among the several states and between the states and the national government? 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. 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. If these opinions be thought doubtful, they are, nevertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. . Under that system, the legal actionthe application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. 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. This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. Enrolling in a course lets you earn progress by passing quizzes and exams. . This government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. . . Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 20, 1830. Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives. This would have been the case even if no positive provision to that effect had been inserted in that instrument. 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. 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? The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . 1. emigration the movement of people from one place to another 2. immigration a situation in which resources are being used up at a faster rate than they can be replenished 3. migration the leaving of one's homeland to settle in a new place 4. overpopulation the movement of people to a new country 5. sustainable development a situation in which the birth rate is not sufficient to replace the . Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? The next day, however, Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster rose with his reply, and the northern states knew they had found their champion. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. Now, have they given away that right, or agreed to limit or restrict it in any respect? . . 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 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. Create your account. . What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion. Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Breckinridge Facti (Southern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. Our Core Document Collection allows students to read history in the words of those who made it. But, sir, the gentleman is mistaken. 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. Available in hard copy and for download. For the next several days, the men traded speeches which contemporaries of the time described as the greatest orations ever delivered in the Senate. 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. 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. Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason thus. The honorable member himself is not, I trust, and can never be, one of these. The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions Add Song of the Spinners from the Lowell Offering. . [Its leader] would have a knot before him, which he could not untie. But his standpoint was purely local and sectional. Daniel webster (ma) and sen. Hayne of . What followed, the Webster Hayne debate, was one of the most famous exchanges in Senate history. 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. Excerpts from Ratification Documents of Virginia a Ratifying Conventions>New York Ratifying Convention. An equally. A speech by Louisiana Senator Edward Livingston, however, neatly explains how American nationhood encompasses elements of both Webster and Hayne's ideas. The debate continued, in some ways not being fully settled until the completion of the Civil War affirmed the power of the federal government to preserve the Union over the sovereignty of the states to leave it. A state will be restrained by a sincere love of the Union. Some of Webster's personal friends had felt nervous over what appeared to them too hasty a period for preparation. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 19, 1830. It is to state, and to defend, what I conceive to be the true principles of the Constitution under which we are here assembled. . 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. . Sir, all our difficulties on this subject have arisen from interference from abroad, which has disturbed, and may again disturb, our domestic tranquility, just so far as to bring down punishment upon the heads of the unfortunate victims of a fanatical and mistaken humanity. 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." 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.. 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! 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. And what has been the consequence? . . Daniel Webster argued against nullification (the idea that states could disobey federal laws) arguing in favor of a strong federal government which would bind the states together under the Constitution. 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. Noah grew a vineyard, got drunk on wine and lay naked. The Webster-Hayne debates began over one issue but quickly switched to another. 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. . . . Let us look at the historical facts. Crittenden Compromise Plan & Reception | What was the Crittenden Compromise? You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll hopefully stay awake until the end of the lesson. 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. States' rights (South) vs. nationalism (North). The debate was important because it laid out the arguments in favor of nationalism in the face of growing sectionalism. . Webster-Hayne Debate book. . Sir, there exists, moreover, a deep and settled conviction of the benefits, which result from a close connection of all the states, for purposes of mutual protection and defense. But it was the honor of a caste; and the struggling bread-winners of society, the great commonalty, he little studied or understood. The people had had quite enough of that kind of government, under the Confederacy. It was motivated by a dispute over the continued sale of western lands, an important source of revenue for the federal government. Rachel Venter is a recent graduate of Metropolitan State University of Denver. 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. They significantly declare, that it is time to calculate the value of the Union; and their aim seems to be to enumerate, and to magnify all the evils, real and imaginary, which the government under the Union produces. This is the sense in which the Framers of the Constitution use the word consolidation; and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. 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. One of those was the Webster-Hayne debate, a series of unplanned speeches presented before the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830. The speech is also known for the line Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable, which would subsequently become the state motto of North Dakota, appearing on the state seal. This seemed like an Eastern spasm of jealousy at the progress of the West. . All regulated governments, all free governments, have been broken up by similar disinterested and well-disposed interference! Even the revenue system of this country, by which the whole of our pecuniary resources are derived from indirect taxation, from duties upon imports, has done much to weaken the responsibility of our federal rulers to the people, and has made them, in some measure, careless of their rights, and regardless of the high trust committed to their care. Webster's "Second Reply to Hayne" was generally regarded as "the most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress."[1]. Liberty has been to them the greatest of calamities, the heaviest of curses. . . . So soon as the cessions were obtained, it became necessary to make provision for the government and disposition of the territory . . God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. It was plenary then, and never having been surrendered, must be plenary now. 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. See what I mean? In a time when the country was undergoing some drastic changes, this debate managed to encapsulate the essence of the growing tensions dividing the nation. . 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 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. . Well, you're not alone. 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. The Commercial Greatness of the United States, Special Message to Congress (Tyler Doctrine), Estranged Labour and The Communist Manifesto, State of the Union Address Part II (1848). 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 . And here it will be necessary to go back to the origin of the federal government. God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. . Webster's articulation of the concept of the Union went on to shape American attitudes about the federal government. The gentleman has made an eloquent appeal to our hearts in favor of union. The WebsterHayne debate was a debate in the United States between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina that took place on January 1927, 1830 on the topic of protectionist tariffs. Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . . 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. 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]. . It is observable enough, that the doctrine for which the honorable gentleman contends, leads him to the necessity of maintaining, not only that this general government is the creature of the states, but that it is the creature of each of the states severally; so that each may assert the power, for itself, of determining whether it acts within the limits of its authority. 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?
Black Sheep Menu Calories,
Business Analyst Conferences 2023,
Cruikshank Family Hannibal, Mo,
Is Grease A Jukebox Musical,
Fatal Car Accident Mn Yesterday,
Articles W
