what idea was espoused with the webster hayne debates

The Webster-Hayne Debate: An Inquiry into the Nature of Union by Stefan 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. Some of Webster's personal friends had felt nervous over what appeared to them too hasty a period for preparation. Lincoln-Douglas Debates History & Significance | What Was the Lincoln-Douglas Debate? . 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? Consolidation!that perpetual cry, both of terror and delusionconsolidation! Hayne, Robert Young | South Carolina Encyclopedia Francis O. J. Smith to Secretary of State Dan Special Message to the House of Representatives, Special Message to Congress on Mexican Relations. 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. 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. Crittenden Compromise Plan & Reception | What was the Crittenden Compromise? . Webster also tried to assert the importance of New England in the face of . Are we in that condition still? The Revelation on Celestial Marriage: Trouble Amon Hon. 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. 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. For Calhoun, see the Speech on Abolition Petitions and the Speech on the Oregon Bill. And what has been the consequence? She has worked as a university writing consultant for over three years. New England, the Union, and the Constitution in its integrity, all were triumphantly vindicated. . 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. On this subject, as in all others, we ask nothing of our Northern brethren but to let us alone; leave us to the undisturbed management of our domestic concerns, and the direction of our own industry, and we will ask no more. 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. A speech by Louisiana Senator Edward Livingston, however, neatly explains how American nationhood encompasses elements of both Webster and Hayne's ideas. . . It develops the gentlemans whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. Webster's Reply to Hayne - National Park Service 1830's APUSH Flashcards | Quizlet But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the states. 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. Be this as it may, Hayne was a ready and copious orator, a highly-educated lawyer, a man of varied accomplishments, shining as a writer, speaker, and counselor, equally qualified to draw up a bill or to advocate it, quick to memories, well fortified by wealth and marriage connections, dignified, never vulgar nor unmindful of the feelings of those with whom he mingled, Hayne moved in an atmosphere where lofty and chivalrous honor was the ruling sentiment. This is the sum of what I understand from him, to be the South Carolina doctrine; and the doctrine which he maintains. I have but one word more to add. [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. Webster and the northern states saw the Constitution as binding the individual states together as a single union. It is, sir, the peoples Constitution, the peoples government; made for the people; made by the people; and answerable 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. . Webster-Hayne Debate - Federalism in America - CSF Robert Young Hayne | American politician | Britannica The United States, under the Constitution and federal government, was a single, unified nation, not a coalition of sovereign states. [2] We deal in no abstractions. But, the simple expression of this sentiment has led the gentleman, not only into a labored defense of slavery, in the abstract, and on principle, but, also, into a warm accusation against me, as having attacked the system of domestic slavery, now existing in the Southern states. This seemed like an Eastern spasm of jealousy at the progress of the West. Webster-Hayne Debate | Encyclopedia.com What a commentary on the wisdom, justice, and humanity, of the Southern slave owner is presented by the example of certain benevolent associations and charitable individuals elsewhere. 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 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. What interest, asks he, has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio? Sir, this very question is full of significance. If slavery, as it now exists in this country, be an evil, we of the present day found it ready made to our hands. 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. Who doesn't? Sir, I cordially respond to that appeal. 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 Webster-Hayne Debate: Defining Nationhood in the Early American 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. 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. . Nor shall I stop there. . . This episode was used in nineteenth century America as a Biblical justification for slavery. Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado. 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? In the course of my former remarks, I took occasion to deprecate, as one of the greatest of evils, the consolidation of this government. Differences between Northern and Southern ideas of good governance, which eventually led to the American Civil War, were beginning to emerge. APUSH CH 9 Flashcards | Quizlet These irreconcilable views of national supremacy and state sovereignty framed the constitutional struggle that led to Civil War thirty years later. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. 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. ", What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?. 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. When, however, the gentleman proceeded to contrast the state of Ohio with Kentucky, to the disadvantage of the latter, I listened to him with regret. I propose to consider it, and to compare it with the Constitution. And here it will be necessary to go back to the origin of the federal government. I will struggle while I have life, for our altars and our fire sides, and if God gives me strength, I will drive back the invader discomfited. Rush-Bagot Treaty Structure & Effects | What was the Rush-Bagot Agreement? All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions | Overview, Impact & Significance, Public Speaking for Teachers: Professional Development, AEPA Earth Science (AZ045): Practice & Study Guide, ORELA Early Childhood Education: Practice & Study Guide, Praxis Middle School English Language Arts (5047) Prep, MTLE Physical Education: Practice & Study Guide, ILTS Mathematics (208): Test Practice and Study Guide, MTLE Earth & Space Science: Practice & Study Guide, AEPA Business Education (NT309): Help & Review, Counselor Preparation Comprehensive Examination (CPCE): Exam Prep & Study Guide, GACE Special Education Adapted Curriculum Test I (083) Prep, GACE Special Education Adapted Curriculum Test II (084) Prep, Create an account to start this course today.

Improper Display Of License Plate Arkansas, Penalty For Driving Without Registration Nebraska, How To Calculate First Pitch Strike Percentage, Why Is King Arthur A Girl In Fate, Articles W