South Carolinas Declaration of the Causes of Sece Distribution of the Slave Population by State. Sir, all our difficulties on this subject have arisen from interference from abroad, which has disturbed, and may again disturb, our domestic tranquility, just so far as to bring down punishment upon the heads of the unfortunate victims of a fanatical and mistaken humanity. . . The significance of Daniel Webster's argument went far beyond the immediate proposal at hand. This is the sense in which the Framers of the Constitution use the word consolidation; and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. It is only by a strict adherence to the limitations imposed by the Constitution on the federal government, that this system works well, and can answer the great ends for which it was instituted. The main issue of the Webster-Hayne Debate was the nature of the country that had been created by the Constitution. Let's start by looking at the United States around 1830. At the time of the debate, Webster was serving his term as Senator of Massachusetts. 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.) 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. There was an end to all apprehension. 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. The next day, however, Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster rose with his reply, and the northern states knew they had found their champion. Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitution under which we sit. . But it was the honor of a caste; and the struggling bread-winners of society, the great commonalty, he little studied or understood. Prejudice Not Natural: The American Colonization "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July? Though the debate began as a standard policy debate, the significance of Daniel Webster's argument reached far beyond a single policy proposal. 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. 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. Consolidation, like the tariff, grates upon his ear. Record of the Organization and Proceedings of The Massachusetts Lawmakers Investigate Working Condit State (Colonial) Legislatures>Massachusetts State Legislature. 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. . . Battle of Fort Sumter in the Civil War | Who Won the Battle of Fort Sumter? Will it promote the welfare of the United States to have at our disposal a permanent treasury, not drawn from the pockets of the people, but to be derived from a source independent of them? .Readers will finish the book with a clear idea of the reason Webster's "Reply" became so influential in its own day. . Well, it's important to remember that the nation was still young and much different than what we think of today. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. I did not utter a single word, which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. I spoke, sir, of the ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery, in all future times, northwest of the Ohio,[6] as a measure of great wisdom and foresight; and one which had been attended with highly beneficial and permanent consequences. Ham, one of Noahs sons, saw him uncovered, for which Noah cursed him by making Hams son, Canaan, a slave to Ham's brothers. It is only regarded as a possible means of good; or on the other hand, as a possible means of evil. 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. Thousands of these deluded victims of fanaticism were seduced into the enjoyment of freedom in our Northern cities. 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! Lincoln-Douglas Debates History & Significance | What Was the Lincoln-Douglas Debate? . 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. Webster believed that the Constitution should be viewed as a binding document between the United States rather than an agreement between sovereign states. [Its leader] would have a knot before him, which he could not untie. . Sir, I cordially respond to that appeal. Noah grew a vineyard, got drunk on wine and lay naked. . This debate exposed the critically different understandings of the nature of the American. 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. Congress could only recommendtheir acts were not of binding force, till the states had adopted and sanctioned them. Well, the southern states were infuriated. 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. 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. Robert Young Hayne spent more than two decades in elected offices, including mayor of Charleston, member of South Carolina's legislature, attorney general, and then governor of the state. . 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. 1824 Presidential Election, Candidates & Significance | Who Won the Election of 1824? Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1830, the federal government collected few taxes and had two primary sources of revenue. 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. . As sovereign states, each state could individually interpret the Constitution and even leave the Union altogether. . Some of his historical deductions may be questioned; but far above all possible error on the part of her leaders, stood colonial and Revolutionary New England, and the sturdy, intelligent, and thriving people whose loyalty to the Union had never failed, and whose home, should ill befall the nation, would yet prove liberty's last shelter. He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. In fact, Webster's definition of the Constitution as for the People, by the People, and answerable to the People would go on to form one of the most enduring ideas about American democracy. . Hayne quotes from Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, December 26, 1825, https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-william-branch-giles/?_sft_document_author=thomas-jefferson. 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. The debate was on. . 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. They will not destroy it, they will not impair itthey will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! I am opposed, therefore, in any shape, to all unnecessary extension of the powers, or the influence of the Legislature or Executive of the Union over the states, or the people of the states; and, most of all, I am opposed to those partial distributions of favors, whether by legislation or appropriation, which has a direct and powerful tendency to spread corruption through the land; to create an abject spirit of dependence; to sow the seeds of dissolution; to produce jealousy among the different portions of the Union, and finally to sap the very foundations of the government itself. 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? Even the revenue system of this country, by which the whole of our pecuniary resources are derived from indirect taxation, from duties upon imports, has done much to weaken the responsibility of our federal rulers to the people, and has made them, in some measure, careless of their rights, and regardless of the high trust committed to their care. 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. . Webster scoffed at the idea of consolidation, labeling it "that perpetual cry, both of terror and delusion." What Hayne and his supporters actually meant to do, Webster claimed, was to resist those means that might strengthen the bonds of common interest. Nor shall I stop there. But still, throughout American history, several debates have captured the nation's attention in a way that would make even Hollywood jealous. It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to bear up any other than free men. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. Finally, sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the states will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the Constitution. Besides that, however, the federal government was still figuring out its role in American society. What interest, asks he, has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio? Sir, this very question is full of significance. I said, only, that it was highly wise and useful in legislating for the northwestern country, while it was yet a wilderness, to prohibit the introduction of slaves: and added, that I presumed, in the neighboring state of Kentucky, there was no reflecting and intelligent gentleman, who would doubt, that if the same prohibition had been extended, at the same early period, over that commonwealth, her strength and population would, at this day, have been far greater than they are. Most assuredly, I need not say I differ with him, altogether and most widely, on that point. The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions Add Song of the Spinners from the Lowell Offering. Sir, an immense national treasury would be a fund for corruption. This, sir, is General Washingtons consolidation. The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of spontaneous speeches presented to the United States Senate by senators Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. It was a speech delivered before a crowded auditory, and loud were the Southern exultations that he was more than a match for Webster. . If an inquiry should ever be instituted in these matters, however, it will be found that the profits of the slave trade were not confined to the South. The gentleman takes alarm at the sound. . To them, this was a scheme to give the federal government more control over the cost of land by creating a scarcity. It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. . And what has been the consequence? The taxes paid by foreign nations to export American cotton, for example, generated lots of money for the government. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. So soon as the cessions were obtained, it became necessary to make provision for the government and disposition of the territory . 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. . [was] fixed, forever, the character of the population in the vast regions Northwest of the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary servitude. - 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. 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. He accused them of a desire to check the growth of the West in the interests of protection. Edited and introduced by Jason W. Stevens. Now that was a good 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. An equally talented orator, Webster rose as the advocate of the North in the debate with his captivating reply to Hayne's initial argument. . 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. 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]. 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. Create your account, 15 chapters | This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. I deem far otherwise of the Union of the states; and so did the Framers of the Constitution themselves. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. The measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. If they mean merely this, then, no doubt, the public lands as well as everything else in which we have a common interest, tends to consolidation; and to this species of consolidation every true American ought to be attached; it is neither more nor less than strengthening the Union itself. lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. Francis O. J. Smith to Secretary of State Dan Special Message to the House of Representatives, Special Message to Congress on Mexican Relations. This means that South Carolina is essentially its own nation, Georgia is its own nation, and so on. A four-speech debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina, in January 1830. 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. . Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. 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. Sir, when the gentleman provokes me to such a conflict, I meet him at the threshold. . In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. This was the tenor of Webster's speech, and nobly did the country respond to it. 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 Northwest Ordinance. . But I do not understand the doctrine now contended for to be that which, for the sake of distinctness, we may call the right of revolution. . . . . The people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. . . . Is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? Hayne entered the U.S. Senate in 1823 and soon became prominent as a spokesman for the South and for the . . Would it be safe to confide such a treasure to the keeping of our national rulers? . All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. The people had had quite enough of that kind of government, under the Confederacy. . We see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow. She has a BA in political science. 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. Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. . The scene depicted in the painting is Webster concluding his debate with Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. For Calhoun, see the Speech on Abolition Petitions and the Speech on the Oregon Bill. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 19, 1830. 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. An error occurred trying to load this video. 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. Webster's articulation of the concept of the Union went on to shape American attitudes about the federal government. An equally. . 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. Liberty has been to them the greatest of calamities, the heaviest of curses. 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. As a pious son of Federalism, Webster went the full length of the required defense. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. Webster-Hayne Debate 1830, an unplanned series of speeches in the Senate, during which Robert Hayne of South Carolina interpreted the Constitution as little more than a treaty between sovereign states, and Daniel Webster expressed the concept of the United States as one nation. 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." 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. . 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. 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. 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? The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . We had no other general government. . I admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution, and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to, when a revolution is to be justified. . But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the states. State governments were in control of their own affairs and expected little intervention from the federal government. The Revelation on Celestial Marriage: Trouble Amon Hon. Historians love a good debate. Webster realized that if the social, political, and economic elite of Massachusetts and the Northeast were to once again lay claim to national leadership, he had to justify New England's previous history of sectionalism within a framework of nationalistic progression. 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. . Jackson himself would raise a national toast for 'the Union' later that year. 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. 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. South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification 1832 | Crisis, Cause & Issues. Certainly, sir, I am, and ever have been of that opinion. I know, full well, that it is, and has been, the settled policy of some persons in the South, for years, to represent the people of the North as disposed to interfere with them, in their own exclusive and peculiar concerns. Shedding weak tears over sufferings which had existence only in their own sickly imaginations, these friends of humanity set themselves systematically to work to seduce the slaves of the South from their masters. 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. 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. Whose agent is it? Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. He served as a U.S. senator from 1823 to 1832, and was a leading proponent of the states' rights doctrine. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. 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. This will co-operate with the feelings of patriotism to induce a state to avoid any measures calculated to endanger that connection. . . The Webster-Hayne debate laid out key issues faced by the Senate in the 1820s and 1830s. Well, let's look at the various parts. No hanging over the abyss of disunion, no weighing of the chances, no doubting as to what the Constitution was worth, no placing of liberty before Union, but "liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable." Rachel Venter is a recent graduate of Metropolitan State University of Denver. For all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in anything said or intimated by me. Excerpts from Ratification Documents of Virginia a Ratifying Conventions>New York Ratifying Convention. Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. 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. Assuredly not. . 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. It would be equally fatal to the sovereignty and independence of the states. Under that system, the legal actionthe application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. 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. Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster's "Second Reply" to South Carolina Senator Robert Y. Hayne has long been thought of as a great oratorical celebration of American Nationalism in a period of sectional conflict.