It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. All of these contentious topics were touched upon in Webster and Hayne's nine day long debate. Regional Conflict in America: Debate Over States' Rights. Our notion of things is entirely different. Hayne quotes from the Virginia Resolution (1798), authored by Thomas Jefferson, to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) | Case, Significance & Summary. 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. They attack nobody, and menace nobody. 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: Let us look at his probablemodus operandi. . . . And here it will be necessary to go back to the origin of the federal government. His speech was indeed a powerful one of its eloquence and personality. The theory that the states' may vote against unfair laws. 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. They will also better understand the debate's political context. 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? See what I mean? Can any man believe, sir, that, if twenty-three millions per annum was now levied by direct taxation, or by an apportionment of the same among the states, instead of being raised by an indirect tax, of the severe effect of which few are aware, that the waste and extravagance, the unauthorized imposition of duties, and appropriations of money for unconstitutional objects, would have been tolerated for a single year? But the feeling is without all adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists wholly groundless. I'm imagining that your answer is probably 'I do.' I did not utter a single word, which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. The following states came from the territory north and west of the Ohio river: Ohio (1803), Indiana (1816), Illinois (1818), Michigan (1837), Wisconsin (1848) and Minnesota (1858). Is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? But it was the honor of a caste; and the struggling bread-winners of society, the great commonalty, he little studied or understood. . 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. Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the constitutional question. You see, to the south, the Constitution was essentially a treaty signed between sovereign states. . Webster replied to his speech the next day and left not a shred of the charge, baseless as it was. And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentlemans doctrine a little into its practical application. we find the most opposite and irreconcilable opinions between the two parties which I have before described. 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.. . . Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 26 and 27, 1830. Expert Answers. Create your account. I have but one word more to add. 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. The significance of Daniel Webster's argument went far beyond the immediate proposal at hand. In 1830, the federal government collected few taxes and had two primary sources of revenue. But his calm, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. 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. 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. Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Breckinridge Facti (Southern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. 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. . Well, let's look at the various parts. . Sir, I cordially respond to that appeal. Congress could only recommendtheir acts were not of binding force, till the states had adopted and sanctioned them. . The great debate, which culminated in Hayne's encounter with Webster, came about in a somewhat casual way. . Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives. [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. So soon as the cessions were obtained, it became necessary to make provision for the government and disposition of the territory . . Several state governments or courts, some in the north, had espoused the idea of nullification prior to 1828. . It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. In this regard, Webster anticipated an argument that Abraham Lincoln made in his First Inaugural Address (1861). For one, Hayne and Webster were arguing for the fate of the West and, in particular, whether the North or South would control western development. . Broadside Advertisement for Runaway Slave, Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a Free-Soiler, Free & Slave-holding States and Territories. There was no clear winner of the debate, but the Union's victory over the Confederacy just a few decades later brought Webster's ideas to fruition. Create your account, 15 chapters | This will co-operate with the feelings of patriotism to induce a state to avoid any measures calculated to endanger that connection. I love a good debate. The arena selected for a first impression was the Senate, where the arch-heretic himself presided and guided the onset with his eye. . 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. . God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. . Webster's articulation of the concept of the Union went on to shape American attitudes about the federal government. 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. . . The debates between daniel webster of massachusetts and robert hayne of south carolina gave. . . The debate was on. . Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. All of these ideas, however, are only parts of the main point. 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. 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. A state will be restrained by a sincere love of the Union. 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? Southern states advocated for strong, sovereign state governments, a small federal government, the western expansion of the agricultural economy, and with it, the maintenance of the institution of slavery. . . 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. President Andrew Jackson had just been elected, most of the states got rid of property requirements for voting, and an entire new era of democracy was being born. Speech on Assuming Office of the President. This statement, though strong, is no stronger than the strictest truth will warrant. 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. Their own power over their own instrument remains. 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. 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. What followed, the Webster Hayne debate, was one of the most famous exchanges in Senate history. 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. 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. 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. 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. . Lincoln-Douglas Debates History & Significance | What Was the Lincoln-Douglas Debate? That led into a debate on the economy, in which Webster attacked the institution of slavery and Hayne labeled the policy of protectionist tariffs as the consolidation of a strong central government, which he called the greatest of evils. All regulated governments, all free governments, have been broken up by similar disinterested and well-disposed interference! Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 20, 1830. . Connecticut's proposal was an attempt to slow the growth of the nation, control westward expansion, and bolster the federal government's revenue. . An equally talented orator, Webster rose as the advocate of the North in the debate with his captivating reply to Hayne's initial argument. Webster-Hayne Debate book. He was a lawyer turned congressional representative who eventually worked his way to the office of U.S. Secretary of State. Record of the Organization and Proceedings of The Massachusetts Lawmakers Investigate Working Condit State (Colonial) Legislatures>Massachusetts State Legislature. He was dressed with scrupulous care, in a blue coat with metal buttons, a buff vest rounding over his full abdomen, and his neck encircled with a white cravat.