3 lipca 2022

We, sir, who oppose the Carolina doctrine, do not deny that the people may, if they choose, throw off any government, when it becomes oppressive and intolerable, and erect a better in its stead. . . This is the sense in which the Framers of the Constitution use the word consolidation; and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. Battle of Fort Sumter in the Civil War | Who Won the Battle of Fort Sumter? Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. Pet Banks History & Effects | What are Pet Banks? 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. But I do not admit that, under the Constitution, and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a state government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever. - Definition and Uses, Public Speaking: Assignment 1 - Informative Speech, Public Speaking: Assignment 3 - Special Occasion Speech, The Role of Probability Distributions, Random Numbers & the Computer in Simulations, The Monte Carlo Simulation: Scope & Common Applications, Working Scholars Bringing Tuition-Free College to the Community, The methods by which the federal government earned its revenue, The federal government's surveying and selling of land west of the Mississippi River, The issue of slavery, which was beginning to divide the Northern and Southern states, The balance of power between federal and state governments. The senator from Massachusetts, in denouncing what he is pleased to call the Carolina doctrine,[5] has attempted to throw ridicule upon the idea that a state has any constitutional remedy by the exercise of its sovereign authority against a gross, palpable, and deliberate violation of the Constitution. He called it an idle or a ridiculous notion, or something to that effect; and added, that it would make the Union a mere rope of sand. Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. Go to these cities now, and ask the question. . But it was the honor of a caste; and the struggling bread-winners of society, the great commonalty, he little studied or understood. 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. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches delivered before the Senate in 1830. . 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. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. Who doesn't? The Webster-Hayne debate, which again was just one section of this greater discussion in the Senate, is traditionally considered to have begun when South Carolina senator Robert Y. Hayne stood to argue against Connecticut's proposal, accusing the northeastern states of trying to stall development of the West so that southern agricultural interests couldn't expand. 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 episode was used in nineteenth century America as a Biblical justification for slavery. . I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. We who come here, as agents and representatives of these narrow-minded and selfish men of New England, consider ourselves as bound to regard, with equal eye, the good of the whole, in whatever is within our power of legislation. For all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in anything said or intimated by me. Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person. [2] We deal in no abstractions. What was going on? In our contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same country; states, united under the same general government, having interests, common, associated, intermingled. When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the states, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. 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. But, according to the gentlemans reading, the object of the Constitution was to consolidate the government, and the means would seem to be, the promotion of injustice, causing domestic discord, and depriving the states and the people of the blessings of liberty forever. MTEL Speech: Notable Debates & Speeches in U.S. History, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858: Summary & Significance, Psychological Research & Experimental Design, All Teacher Certification Test Prep Courses, The Significance of Daniel Webster's Argument, MTEL Speech: Principles of Argument & Debate, MTEL Speech: Understanding Persuasive Communication, MTEL Speech: Public Argument in Democratic Societies. If these opinions be thought doubtful, they are, nevertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. . . 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. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . Then, in January of 1830, a senator from Connecticut introduced a proposal to the Senate stating that the federal government should stop surveying the lands west of the Mississippi River. [was] fixed, forever, the character of the population in the vast regions Northwest of the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary servitude. . But, sir, we will pass over all this. Senator Foote, of Connecticut, submitted a proposition inquiring into the expediency of limiting the sales of public lands to those already in the market. Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives. Daniel Webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the danger of the states' rights doctrine, which permitted each State to decide for itself which laws were unconstitutional, claiming it would lead to civil war. 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. Well, it's important to remember that the nation was still young and much different than what we think of today. . . So what was this debate really about? 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. Debate on the Constitutionality of the Mexican War, Letters and Journals from the Oregon Trail. Nor shall I stop there. . Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 19, 1830. Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Breckinridge Facti (Southern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. Most are forgettable, to put it charitably. The states cannot now make war; they cannot contract alliances; they cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin money. . The theory that the states' may vote against unfair laws. He rose, the image of conscious mastery, after the dull preliminary business of the day was dispatched, and with a happy figurative allusion to the tossed mariner, as he called for a reading of the resolution from which the debate had so far drifted, lifted his audience at once to his level. 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. It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to bear up any other than free men. This statement, though strong, is no stronger than the strictest truth will warrant. I shrink almost instinctively from a course, however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feelings, and sectional jealousies. 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? The dominant historical opinion of the famous debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Young Hayne of South Carolina which took place in the United States Senate in 1830 has long been that Webster defeated Hayne both as an orator and a statesman. 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. The great debate, which culminated in Hayne's encounter with Webster, came about in a somewhat casual way. . State governments were in control of their own affairs and expected little intervention from the federal government. As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 88,000 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. 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. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. The Virginia Resolution asserted that when the federal government undertook the deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of powers not granted to it in the constitution, states had the right and duty to interpose their authority to prevent this evil. 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. God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. I love a good debate. They had burst forth from arguments about a decision by Connecticut Senator Samuel Foote. . 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. Let us look at the historical facts. Webster's articulation of the concept of the Union went on to shape American attitudes about the federal government. 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. It is one from which we are not disposed to shrink, in whatever form or under whatever circumstances it may be pressed upon us. 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. . 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.. I propose to consider it, and to compare it with the Constitution. What idea was espoused with the Webster-Hayne debates? 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. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. 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. 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. President John Quincy Adams and the Election of 1824. 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. 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. . Sir, when the gentleman provokes me to such a conflict, I meet him at the threshold. 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. 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. . . Hayne and the South saw it as basically a treaty between sovereign states. 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. 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. . 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. Get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons. succeed. Strange was it, however, that in heaping reproaches upon the Hartford Convention he did not mark how nearly its leaders had mapped out the same line of opposition to the national Government that his State now proposed to take, both relying upon the arguments of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 179899. And who are its enemies? . . Is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? Explore the Webster-Hayne debate. Webster stood in favor of Connecticut's proposal that the federal government should stop surveying western land and sell the land it had already surveyed to boost it's revenue and strengthen it's authority. . . . But still, throughout American history, several debates have captured the nation's attention in a way that would make even Hollywood jealous. I have but one word more to add. Most people of the time supported a small central government and strong state governments, so the federal government was much weaker than you might have expected. Religious Views: Letter to the Editor of the Illin Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Douglas Faction), (Northern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. Webster was eloquent, he was educated, he was witty, and he was a staunch defender of American liberty. Connecticut's proposal was an attempt to slow the growth of the nation, control westward expansion, and bolster the federal government's revenue. .Readers will finish the book with a clear idea of the reason Webster's "Reply" became so influential in its own day. Consolidation, like the tariff, grates upon his ear. . . 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. 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. If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have war. . Ah! Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. 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. 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. The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . . Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 27, 1830. . . Judiciary Act of 1801 | Overview, History & Significance, General Ulysses S. Grant Takes Charge: His Strategic Plan for Ending the War. 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. Besides that, however, the federal government was still figuring out its role in American society. we find the most opposite and irreconcilable opinions between the two parties which I have before described. 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. . foote wanted to stop surveying lands until they could sell the ones already looked at As sovereign states, each state could individually interpret the Constitution and even leave the Union altogether. He accused them of a desire to check the growth of the West in the interests of protection. Webster-Hayne Debate. It is, sir, the peoples Constitution, the peoples government; made for the people; made by the people; and answerable to the people. Edited and introduced by Jason W. Stevens.

Google Sheets Greater Than Or Equal To Another Cell, How Deep Are Sprinkler Lines Buried In Texas, Lackland Air Force Base Newspaper, Articles W

what idea was espoused with the webster hayne debatesKontakt

Po więcej informacji zapraszamy do kontaktu.