This is the true constitutional consolidation. T he Zionist-evangelical back story goes back several decades, with 90-year-old televangelist Pat Robertson being a prime case study.. One of the more notable "coincidences" or anomalies Winter Watch brings to your attention is the image of Robertson on the cover of Time magazine in 1986 back before the public was red pilled by the Internet -as the pastor posed with a gesture called . Most are forgettable, to put it charitably. The real significance of this debate was in each man's interpretation of the United States Constitution. He had allowed himself but a single night from eve to morn to prepare for a critical and crowning occasion. . Compare And Contrast The Tension Between North And South. Connecticut and other northeastern states were worried about the pace of growth and wanted to slow this down. 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. . 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. 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. Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. The Webster-Hayne Debate - 1830 - YouTube 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 understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina to maintain, that it is a right of the state legislatures to interfere, whenever, in their judgment, this government transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of its laws. . This seemed like an Eastern spasm of jealousy at the progress of the West. 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. 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. 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. 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. Webster-Hayne debate - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In 1830, the federal government collected few taxes and had two primary sources of revenue. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 19, 1830. 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. God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise. . . . Whose agent is it? Besides that, however, the federal government was still figuring out its role in American society. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. MTEL Speech: Public Discourse & Debate in the U.S. 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! Who, then, Mr. President, are the true friends of the Union? . Let us look at the historical facts. 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. 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. He tells us, we have heard much, of late, about consolidation; that it is the rallying word for all who are endeavoring to weaken the Union by adding to the power of the states. But consolidation, says the gentleman, was the very object for which the Union was formed; and in support of that opinion, he read a passage from the address of the president of the Convention[3] to Congress (which he assumes to be authority on his side of the question.) When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the states, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. . . 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. 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. It would be equally fatal to the sovereignty and independence of the states. There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of the South. Post-Civil War, as the nation rebuilt and reconciled the balance between federal and state government, federal law became the supreme law of the land, just as Webster desired. webster hayne debate Flashcards | Quizlet He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. 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. 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! copyright 2003-2023 Study.com. 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? . Hayne, Robert Young | South Carolina Encyclopedia Wilmot Proviso of 1846: Overview & Significance | What was the Wilmot Proviso? The action, the drama, the suspensewho needs the movies? The honorable member himself is not, I trust, and can never be, one of these. 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 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. . APUSH CH 9 Flashcards | Quizlet Speech on Assuming Office of the President. By establishing justice, promoting domestic tranquility, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. This is the true reading of the Constitution. Webster believed that the Constitution should be viewed as a binding document between the United States rather than an agreement between sovereign states. The Webster Hayne Debate. We met it as a practical question of obligation and duty. . The following states came from the territory north and west of the Ohio river: Ohio (1803), Indiana (1816), Illinois (1818), Michigan (1837), Wisconsin (1848) and Minnesota (1858). . 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. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. 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. . 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. 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. The Constitutional Convention: The Great Compromise, The Webster-Hayne Debate of 1830: Summary & Issues, The History of American Presidential Debates, Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening: Sermons & Biography, Who Was Susan B. Anthony? Webster-Hayne debate - Wikipedia Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives. . 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. It is the common pretense. Expert Answers. . The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions Add Song of the Spinners from the Lowell Offering. Ham, one of Noahs sons, saw him uncovered, for which Noah cursed him by making Hams son, Canaan, a slave to Ham's brothers. . . He must say to his followers [members of the state militia], defend yourselves with your bayonets; and this is warcivil war. 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. . This would have been the case even if no positive provision to that effect had been inserted in that instrument. Hayne, South Carolina's foremost Senator, was the chosen champion; and the cause of his State, both in its right and wrong sides, could have found no abler exponent while [Vice President] Calhoun's official station kept him from the floor. Perhaps a quotation from a speech in Parliament in 1803 of Lord Castlereagh, Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry (17691822) during a debate over the conduct of British officials in India. . Help if you can :) please and ty Sir, I will not stop at the border; I will carry the war into the enemys territory, and not consent to lay down my arms, until I shall have obtained indemnity for the past, and security for the future.[4] It is with unfeigned reluctance that I enter upon the performance of this part of my duty. 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. 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. Competing Conceptions of Union and Ordered Liberty in The Webster-Hayne debates began over one issue but quickly switched to another. . 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. Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the constitutional question. . Webster's "Second Reply to Hayne" was generally regarded as "the most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress."[1]. 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. What followed, the Webster Hayne debate, was one of the most famous exchanges in Senate history. 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? . The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States H What Are the Colored People Doing for Themselves? It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. . 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 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. . . Benton was rising in renown as the advocate not only of Western settlers but of a new theory that the public lands should be given away instead of sold to them. . Consolidation!that perpetual cry, both of terror and delusionconsolidation! You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll hopefully stay awake until the end of the lesson. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. . Daniel webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the. States' rights (South) vs. nationalism (North). . . . Hayne was a great orator, filled with fiery passion and eloquent prose. 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 . Webster replied to his speech the next day and left not a shred of the charge, baseless as it was. . . These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened . Certainly, sir, I am, and ever have been of that opinion. Hayne and the South saw it as basically a treaty between sovereign states. If these opinions be thought doubtful, they are, nevertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. . 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. Our Core Document Collection allows students to read history in the words of those who made it. 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. Go to these cities now, and ask the question. 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. His speech was indeed a powerful one of its eloquence and personality. The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. The debate itself, a nine-day long unplanned exchange between Senators Robert Y. Hayne and Daniel Webster, directly addressed the methods by which the federal government was generating revenue, namely through protective tariffs and the selling of federal lands in the newly acquired western territories. Regional Conflict in America: Debate Over States' Rights. The other way was through the sale of federally-owned land to private citizens. Under that system, the legal actionthe application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. The purpose of the Constitution was to permit cooperation between states under a shared political standard, but that meant that any growth in a federal government threatened the sovereignty of the states. 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. The idea that a state could nullify a federal law, associated with South Carolina, especially after the publication of John C. Calhouns South Carolina Exposition and Protest (1828) in response to the tariff passed in that year. Create your account. . They attack nobody, and menace nobody. Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person. . Ostend Manifesto of 1854 Overview & Purpose | What was the Ostend Manifesto? 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. He served as a U.S. senator from 1823 to 1832, and was a leading proponent of the states' rights doctrine. It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. The United States, under the Constitution and federal government, was a single, unified nation, not a coalition of sovereign states. So they could finish selling the lands already surveyed. They switched from a. the tariff of 1828 to national power . Winners and Losers History's Famous Debates - Medium 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. What interest, asks he, has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio? Sir, this very question is full of significance. That's what was happening out West. Jackson himself would raise a national toast for 'the Union' later that year. Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 20, 1830. Sir, I may be singularperhaps I stand alone here in the opinion, but it is one I have long entertained, that one of the greatest safeguards of liberty is a jealous watchfulness on the part of the people, over the collection and expenditure of the public moneya watchfulness that can only be secured where the money is drawn by taxation directly from the pockets of the people. Well, let's look at the various parts. You see, to the south, the Constitution was essentially a treaty signed between sovereign states. Their own power over their own instrument remains. What they said I believe; fully and sincerely believe, that the Union of the states is essential to the prosperity and safety of the states. If I had, sir, the powers of a magician, and could, by a wave of my hand, convert this capital into gold for such a purpose, I would not do it. . And who are its enemies? At the foundation of the constitution of these new Northwestern states, . The Northwest Ordinance. This will co-operate with the feelings of patriotism to induce a state to avoid any measures calculated to endanger that connection. Gloomy and downcast of late, Massachusetts men walked the avenue as though the fife and drum were before them. Having thus distinctly stated the points in dispute between the gentleman and myself, I proceed to examine them. . The taxes paid by foreign nations to export American cotton, for example, generated lots of money for the government. So what was this debate really about? I feel like its a lifeline. . In many respects, his speech betrays the mentality of Massachusetts conservatives seeking to regain national leadership and advance their particular ideas about the nation. It was of a partizan and censorious character and drew nearly all the chief senators out. We see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow. An equally. 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. 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]. . Nor shall I stop there. To them, this was a scheme to give the federal government more control over the cost of land by creating a scarcity. . Hayne argued that the sovereign and independent states had created the Union to promote their particular interests. flashcard sets. Excerpts from Ratification Documents of Virginia a Ratifying Conventions>New York Ratifying Convention. 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 . 1824 Presidential Election, Candidates & Significance | Who Won the Election of 1824? . 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 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. And here it will be necessary to go back to the origin of the federal government. I regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest of evils, both moral and political. Read reviews from world's largest community for readers. . All rights reserved. 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-Hayne Debate - Federalism in America - CSF 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. 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. First, New England was vindicated. 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. The debate was on. . Webster-Hayne Debates, 1830 - Bill of Rights Institute . . What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? Assuredly not. The Webster-Hayne Debate: Defining Nationhood in the Early American Sir, I cordially respond to that appeal. We do not impose geographical limits to our patriotic feeling or regard; we do not follow rivers and mountains, and lines of latitude, to find boundaries, beyond which public improvements do not benefit us. Several state governments or courts, some in the north, had espoused the idea of nullification prior to 1828. . This feeling, always carefully kept alive, and maintained at too intense a heat to admit discrimination or reflection, is a lever of great power in our political machine. TeachingAmericanHistory.org is a project of the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University, 401 College Avenue, Ashland, Ohio 44805 PHONE (419) 289-5411 TOLL FREE (877) 289-5411 EMAIL [emailprotected], The Congress Sends Twelve Amendments to the States, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 3rd Debate Part I, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 3rd Debate Part II, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 4th Debate Part I, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 4th Debate Part II, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 6th Debate Part I, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 6th Debate Part II, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 7th Debate Part I, National Disfranchisement of Colored People, William Lloyd Garrison to Thomas Shipley. 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. . . The theory that the states' may vote against unfair laws.