He describes fully that old state of things then existing. Address to the Slaves of the United States. Webster believed that the Constitution should be viewed as a binding document between the United States rather than an agreement between sovereign states. Which of the following statements best represents the desires of the Northern states during the debate of Missouri statehood? This statement, though strong, is no stronger than the strictest truth will warrant. 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. 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. Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Breckinridge Facti (Southern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. They had burst forth from arguments about a decision by Connecticut Senator Samuel Foote. . It is only regarded as a possible means of good; or on the other hand, as a possible means of evil. Assuredly not. 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. Some of Webster's personal friends had felt nervous over what appeared to them too hasty a period for preparation. I shrink almost instinctively from a course, however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feelings, and sectional jealousies. Having thus distinctly stated the points in dispute between the gentleman and myself, I proceed to examine them. To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. 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. . 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. . The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. . But his calm, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. 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! What was going on? 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. 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. Noah grew a vineyard, got drunk on wine and lay naked. 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.. . 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. Who, then, Mr. President, are the true friends of the Union? But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. 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. . 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: Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. The great debate, which culminated in Hayne's encounter with Webster, came about in a somewhat casual way. This government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. 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. All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. . 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. 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. She has a BA in political science. Religious Views: Letter to the Editor of the Illin Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Douglas Faction), (Northern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. It was of a partizan and censorious character and drew nearly all the chief senators out. While the debaters argued about slavery, the economy, protection tariffs, and western land, the real implication was the meaning of the United States Constitution. 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. 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. 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. We met it as a practical question of obligation and duty. The debate was important because it laid out the arguments in favor of nationalism in the face of growing sectionalism. . 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. Hayne argued that the sovereign and independent states had created the Union to promote their particular interests. [O]pinions were expressed yesterday on the general subject of the public lands, and on some other subjects, by the gentleman from South Carolina [Senator Robert Hayne], so widely different from my own, that I am not willing to let the occasion pass without some reply. I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. we find the most opposite and irreconcilable opinions between the two parties which I have before described. . copyright 2003-2023 Study.com. . 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. By the time it ended nine days later, the focus had shifted to the vastly more cosmic concerns of slavery and the nature of the federal Union. I wish to see no new powers drawn to the general government; but I confess I rejoice in whatever tends to strengthen the bond that unites us, and encourages the hope that our Union may be perpetual. Do they mean, or can they mean, anything more than that the Union of the states will be strengthened, by whatever continues or furnishes inducements to the people of the states to hold together? 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, when the gentleman provokes me to such a conflict, I meet him at the threshold. So what was this debate really about? 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? Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. Webster was eloquent, he was educated, he was witty, and he was a staunch defender of American liberty. 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.Readers will finish the book with a clear idea of the reason Webster's "Reply" became so influential in its own day. Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives. . To them, the more money the central government made, the stronger it became and the more it took rights away from the states to govern themselves. 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. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. . We see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow. The United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. 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. It develops the gentlemans whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. The militia of the state will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. It was a speech delivered before a crowded auditory, and loud were the Southern exultations that he was more than a match for Webster. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. Nor shall I stop there. 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? Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitution under which we sit. The Webster Hayne Debate. The faction of voters in the North were against slavery and feared it spreading into new territory. Its like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. Available in hard copy and for download. 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. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of unplanned speeches in the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830 between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. . Address to the People of the United States, by the What are the main points of difference between Webster and Hayne, especially on the question of the nature of the Union and the Constitution? . . . Hayne entered the U.S. Senate in 1823 and soon became prominent as a spokesman for the South and for the . . . If this Constitution, sir, be the creature of state Legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the volitions of its creators. 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." In our contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same country; states, united under the same general government, having interests, common, associated, intermingled. And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentlemans doctrine a little into its practical application. What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion. There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of the South. All of these contentious topics were touched upon in Webster and Hayne's nine day long debate. . By means of missionaries and political tracts, the scheme was in a great measure successful. Where in these debates do we see a possible argument in defense of Constitutional secession by the states, later claimed by the Southern Confederacy before, during, and after the Civil War? . 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. Enrolling in a course lets you earn progress by passing quizzes and exams. It is the servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different wills and different purposes, and yet bound to obey all. . This is the sum of what I understand from him, to be the South Carolina doctrine; and the doctrine which he maintains. Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. And who are its enemies? But the topic which became the leading feature of the whole debate and gave it an undying interest was that of nullification, in which Hayne and Webster came forth as chief antagonists. God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise. The Revelation on Celestial Marriage: Trouble Amon Hon. 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. . . 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. The measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches delivered before the Senate in 1830. . An equally talented orator, Webster rose as the advocate of the North in the debate with his captivating reply to Hayne's initial argument. It was plenary then, and never having been surrendered, must be plenary now. Speech on Assuming Office of the President. When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. Hayne and the South saw it as basically a treaty between sovereign states. . 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? In this moment in American history, the federal government had relatively little power.