They undertook to form a general government, which should stand on a new basisnot a confederacy, not a league, not a compact between states, but a Constitution; a popular government, founded in popular election, directly responsible to the people themselves, and divided into branches, with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties. [was] fixed, forever, the character of the population in the vast regions Northwest of the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary servitude. . Webster-Hayne Debate - Federalism in America - CSF The excited crowd which had packed the Senate chamber, filling every seat on the floor and in the galleries, and all the available standing room, dispersed after the orator's last grand apostrophe had died away in the air, with national pride throbbing at the heart. This means that South Carolina is essentially its own nation, Georgia is its own nation, and so on. Our notion of things is entirely different. . . Why? President Andrew Jackson had just been elected, most of the states got rid of property requirements for voting, and an entire new era of democracy was being born. 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. 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 Hayne-Webster Debate - Constitution.org Pet Banks History & Effects | What are Pet Banks? Robert Young Hayne | American politician | Britannica The militia of the state will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. It was motivated by a dispute over the continued sale of western lands, an important source of revenue for the federal government. 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? Expert Answers. . Prejudice Not Natural: The American Colonization "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July? 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. 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. . 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. Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . . . This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. . The Webster Hayne Debate - DEBETE CJK It is the common pretense. I feel like its a lifeline. Well, it's important to remember that the nation was still young and much different than what we think of today. There was no clear winner of the debate, but the Union's victory over the Confederacy just a few decades later brought Webster's ideas to fruition. First, New England was vindicated. Differences between Northern and Southern ideas of good governance, which eventually led to the American Civil War, were beginning to emerge. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. 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. we find the most opposite and irreconcilable opinions between the two parties which I have before described. It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. 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 . The Union to be preserved, while it suits local and temporary purposes to preserve it; and to be sundered whenever it shall be found to thwart such purposes. Now that was a good debate! 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? 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. . . Drama, suspense, it's all there. And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentlemans doctrine a little into its practical application. But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. But his reply was gathered from the choicest arguments and the most decadent thoughts that had long floated through his brain while this crisis was gathering; and bringing these materials together in a lucid and compact shape, he calmly composed and delivered before another crowded and breathless auditory a speech full of burning passages, which will live as long as the American Union, and the grandest effort of his life. Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Sir, there does not exist, on the face of the whole earth, a population so poor, so wretched, so vile, so loathsome, so utterly destitute of all the comforts, conveniences, and decencies of life, as the unfortunate blacks of Philadelphia, and New York, and Boston. . . These irreconcilable views of national supremacy and state sovereignty framed the constitutional struggle that led to Civil War thirty years later. 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? As a pious son of Federalism, Webster went the full length of the required defense. It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to bear up any other than free men. 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. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. U.S. Senate: The Most Famous Senate Speech The faction of voters in the North were against slavery and feared it spreading into new territory. To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. 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. In January 1830, a debate on the nature of sovereignty in the America. This is the true constitutional consolidation. 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. It is not the creature of state Legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on state sovereignties. . . 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 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. I love a good debate. Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. I did not utter a single word, which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. . 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. Congress could only recommendtheir acts were not of binding force, till the states had adopted and sanctioned them. . Hayne was a great orator, filled with fiery passion and eloquent prose. 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. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. 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. Connecticut and other northeastern states were worried about the pace of growth and wanted to slow this down. What can I say? The debate, which took place between January 19th and January 27th, 1830, encapsulated the major issues facing the newly founded United States in the 1820s and 1830s; the balance of power between the federal and state governments, the development of the democratic process, and the growing tension between Northern and Southern states. This was the man to fire an aristocracy of fellow citizens ready to arm when their interests were in danger, and upon him, it devolved to advance the cause of South Carolina, break down the tariff, and fascinate the Union with the new rattlesnake theories. Edited and introduced by Jason W. Stevens. Hayne and the South saw it as basically a treaty between sovereign states. The Destiny of America, Speech at the Dedication o An Address. 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. 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. In many respects, his speech betrays the mentality of Massachusetts conservatives seeking to regain national leadership and advance their particular ideas about the nation. 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 other way was through the sale of federally-owned land to private citizens. . . But the feeling is without all adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists wholly groundless. Webster-Hayne debate - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pipefitters Local 120 Pay Scale, Cathy O'donnell Net Worth, Felony Dui Causing Death South Carolina, Where Are The Criminally Insane Housed In California?, Articles W