Daniel webster, in a dramatic speech, showed the. Webster's articulation of the concept of the Union went on to shape American attitudes about the federal government. Southern ships and Southern sailors were not the instruments of bringing slaves to the shores of America, nor did our merchants reap the profits of that accursed traffic.. Get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons. . 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. Gloomy and downcast of late, Massachusetts men walked the avenue as though the fife and drum were before them. . 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. 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. They will not destroy it, they will not impair itthey will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! It is to state, and to defend, what I conceive to be the true principles of the Constitution under which we are here assembled. 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. 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. Drama, suspense, it's all there. 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? 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! Neither side can be said to have 'won' the debate, but Webster's articulation of the Union solidified for many the role of the federal government. 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. 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 these opinions be thought doubtful, they are, nevertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Most are forgettable, to put it charitably. This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. 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. . There was an end to all apprehension. An equally talented orator, Webster rose as the advocate of the North in the debate with his captivating reply to Hayne's initial argument. We look upon the states, not as separated, but as united. . Who doesn't? Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. Speech on Assuming Office of the President. The main issue of the Webster-Hayne Debate was the nature of the country that had been created by the Constitution. We met it as a practical question of obligation and duty. During his first years in Congress, Webster railed against President James Madison 's war policies, invoking a states' rights argument to oppose a conscription bill that went down to defeat.. 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. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. Noah grew a vineyard, got drunk on wine and lay naked. . He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. But it was the honor of a caste; and the struggling bread-winners of society, the great commonalty, he little studied or understood. Thousands of these deluded victims of fanaticism were seduced into the enjoyment of freedom in our Northern cities. Rush-Bagot Treaty Structure & Effects | What was the Rush-Bagot Agreement? Record of the Organization and Proceedings of The Massachusetts Lawmakers Investigate Working Condit State (Colonial) Legislatures>Massachusetts State Legislature. Why? Do they mean, or can they mean, anything more than that the Union of the states will be strengthened, by whatever continues or furnishes inducements to the people of the states to hold together? I have but one word more to add. . The Webster-Hayne debates began over one issue but quickly switched to another. 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. Rachel Venter is a recent graduate of Metropolitan State University of Denver. He entered the Senate on that memorable day with a slow and stately step and took his seat as though unconscious of the loud buzz of expectant interest with which the crowded auditory greeted his appearance. "The most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress" may have been Webster's 1830 "Second Reply to Hayne", a South Carolina Senator who had echoed John C. Calhoun's case for state's rights.. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. Create your account, 15 chapters | The Webster-Hayne Debate between New Hampshire Senator Daniel Webster and South Carolina Senator Robert Young Hayne highlighted the sectional nature of the controversy. South Carolinas Declaration of the Causes of Sece Distribution of the Slave Population by State. Address to the Slaves of the United States. I feel like its a lifeline. The 1830 Webster-Hayne debate centered around the South Carolina nullification crisis of the late 1820s, but historians have largely ignored the sectional interests underpinning Webster's argument on behalf of Unionism and a transcendent nationalism. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. The arena selected for a first impression was the Senate, where the arch-heretic himself presided and guided the onset with his eye. 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 militia of the state will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. 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. 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. 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. Webster was eloquent, he was educated, he was witty, and he was a staunch defender of American liberty. The 1830 WebsterHayne debate centered around the South Carolina nullification crisis of the late 1820s, but historians have largely ignored the sectional interests underpinning Webster's argument on behalf of Unionism and a transcendent nationalism. This is a delicate and sensitive point, in southern feeling; and of late years it has always been touched, and generally with effect, whenever the object has been to unite the whole South against northern men, or northern measures. . It is the servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different wills and different purposes, and yet bound to obey all. . . 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. They will also better understand the debate's political context. There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of the South. The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. 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 people of the United States cherish a devotion to the Union, so pure, so ardent, that nothing short of intolerable oppression, can ever tempt them to do anything that may possibly endanger it. 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. I must now beg to ask, sir, whence is this supposed right of the states derived?where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the Union? In all the efforts that have been made by South Carolina to resist the unconstitutional laws which Congress has extended over them, she has kept steadily in view the preservation of the Union, by the only means by which she believes it can be long preserveda firm, manly, and steady resistance against usurpation. The honorable member himself is not, I trust, and can never be, one of these. Web hardcover $30.00 paperback $17.00 kindle nook book ibook. 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. 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. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. South Carolinas Declaration of the Causes of Secession (1860), Jefferson Daviss Inaugural Address (1861), Documents in Detail: The Webster-Hayne Debates, Remarks in Congress on the Tariff of Abominations, Check out our collection of primary source readers. On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than in Mexico. In our contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same country; states, united under the same general government, having interests, common, associated, intermingled. And, therefore, I cannot but feel regret at the expression of such opinions as the gentleman has avowed; because I think their obvious tendency is to weaken the bond of our connection. The debaters were Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. It was about protectionist tariffs.The speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were not planned. . So soon as the cessions were obtained, it became necessary to make provision for the government and disposition of the territory . After his term as a senator, he served as the Governor of South Carolina. . . There was no winner or loser in the Webster-Hayne debate. I know that there are some persons in the part of the country from which the honorable member comes, who habitually speak of the Union in terms of indifference, or even of disparagement. . . 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. . Webster-Hayne Debate. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. 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.