. 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. Andrew Jackson & the Nullification Crisis | The Hermitage And here it will be necessary to go back to the origin of the federal government. . . . 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. 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. Sir, an immense national treasury would be a fund for corruption. Get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons. This is the true constitutional consolidation. 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. My life upon it, sir, they would not. . Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitution under which we sit. 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. The Hayne-Webster Debate - Constitution.org They undertook to form a general government, which should stand on a new basisnot a confederacy, not a league, not a compact between states, but a Constitution; a popular government, founded in popular election, directly responsible to the people themselves, and divided into branches, with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties. Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Foote Idea To Limit The Sale Of Public Lands In The West To New Settlers. All of these ideas, however, are only parts of the main point. 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. 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. 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. The gentleman takes alarm at the sound. Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? Now, I wish to be informedhowthis state interference is to be put in practice, without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. 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. . Help if you can :) please and ty Webster pursued his objective through a rhetorical strategy that ignored Benton, the principal opponent of New England sectionalism, and that provoked Hayne into an exposition and defense of what became the South Carolina doctrine of nullification. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. 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. 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. 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. The heated speeches were unplanned and stemmed from the debate over a resolution by Connecticut Senator Samuel A. . We see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow. - Women's Rights Facts & Significance, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points: Definition, Speech & Summary, Fireside Chats: Definition & Significance, JFK's New Frontier: Definition, Speech & Program. 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. . Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Breckinridge Facti (Southern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. Since as Vice President and President of the Senate, Calhoun could not take place in the debate, Hayne represented the pro-nullification point-of-view. But his standpoint was purely local and sectional. . . 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. Connecticut and other northeastern states were worried about the pace of growth and wanted to slow this down. New England, the Union, and the Constitution in its integrity, all were triumphantly vindicated. Well, the southern states were infuriated. It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to bear up any other than free men. . 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. 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. 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. Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. 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.) 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? 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. . 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. It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. They will also better understand the debate's political context. Edited and introduced by Jason W. Stevens. . I propose to consider it, and to compare it with the Constitution. 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. Now, have they given away that right, or agreed to limit or restrict it in any respect? Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. 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. All of these contentious topics were touched upon in Webster and Hayne's nine day long debate. Daniel Webster - Facts, Career & Legacy - HISTORY Hayne and the South saw it as basically a treaty between sovereign states. It would enable Congress and the Executive to exercise a control over states, as well as over great interests in the country, nay, even over corporations and individualsutterly destructive of the purity, and fatal to the duration of our institutions. The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. 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. . For the next several days, the men traded speeches which contemporaries of the time described as the greatest orations ever delivered in the Senate. 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. Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. Gloomy and downcast of late, Massachusetts men walked the avenue as though the fife and drum were before them. Besides that, however, the federal government was still figuring out its role in American society. Under that system, the legal actionthe application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. 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? Most are forgettable, to put it charitably. 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. Eloquence threw open the portals of eternal day. It was of a partizan and censorious character and drew nearly all the chief senators out. . Senator Foote, of Connecticut, submitted a proposition inquiring into the expediency of limiting the sales of public lands to those already in the market. . 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. Regional Conflict in America: Debate Over States' Rights. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. The main issue of the Webster-Hayne Debate was the nature of the country that had been created by the Constitution. 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? The specific issue that sparked the Webster-Hayne debate was a proposal by the state of Connecticut which said that the federal government should halt its surveying of land west of the Mississippi and focus on selling the land it had already surveyed to private citizens. Why? 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! . . Address to the Slaves of the United States. Robert Young Hayne | American politician | Britannica 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. Drama, suspense, it's all there. . 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. This seemed like an Eastern spasm of jealousy at the progress of the West. Those who are in favor of consolidation; who are constantly stealing power from the states and adding strength to the federal government; who, assuming an unwarrantable jurisdiction over the states and the people, undertake to regulate the whole industry and capital of the country. Create your account. 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. Connecticut's proposal was an attempt to slow the growth of the nation, control westward expansion, and bolster the federal government's revenue. Hayne quotes from the Virginia Resolution (1798), authored by Thomas Jefferson, to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). Every scheme or contrivance by which rulers are able to procure the command of money by means unknown to, unseen or unfelt by, the people, destroys this security. They had burst forth from arguments about a decision by Connecticut Senator Samuel Foote. 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. 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. Speech of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 19, 1830. When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. . In many respects, his speech betrays the mentality of Massachusetts conservatives seeking to regain national leadership and advance their particular ideas about the nation. . They will not destroy it, they will not impair itthey will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it!
Michelle Bluford Elkhorn South,
Maple Syrup Crystallizing In Fridge,
Articles W
