Mr. Webster arose, and, in conclusion, said: A few words, Mr. President, on this constitutional argument, which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstruct. The Revelation on Celestial Marriage: Trouble Amon Hon. The significance of Daniel Webster's argument went far beyond the immediate proposal at hand. . In many respects, his speech betrays the mentality of Massachusetts conservatives seeking to regain national leadership and advance their particular ideas about the nation. Go to these cities now, and ask the question. 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? . 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. Sir, the very chief end, the main design, for which the whole Constitution was framed and adopted, was to establish a government that should not be obliged to act through state agency, or depend on state opinion and state discretion. This would have been the case even if no positive provision to that effect had been inserted in that instrument. The debate can be seen as a precursor to the debate that became . But the feeling is without all adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists wholly groundless. It was motivated by a dispute over the continued sale of western lands, an important source of revenue for the federal government. In coming to the consideration of the next great question, what ought to be the future policy of the government in relation to the public lands? Most people of the time supported a small central government and strong state governments, so the federal government was much weaker than you might have expected. I'm imagining that your answer is probably 'I do.' 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. Its like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. 1. emigration the movement of people from one place to another 2. immigration a situation in which resources are being used up at a faster rate than they can be replenished 3. migration the leaving of one's homeland to settle in a new place 4. overpopulation the movement of people to a new country 5. sustainable development a situation in which the birth rate is not sufficient to replace the . 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. 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. . . They will not destroy it, they will not impair itthey will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! He had allowed himself but a single night from eve to morn to prepare for a critical and crowning occasion. 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. Hayne and the South saw it as basically a treaty between sovereign states. 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. 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. 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. Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. On January 19, 1830, Hayne attacked the Foot Resolution and labeled the Northeasterners as selfish and unprincipled for their support of protectionism and conservative land policies. 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? . Ostend Manifesto of 1854 Overview & Purpose | What was the Ostend Manifesto? . Connecticut's proposal was an attempt to slow the growth of the nation, control westward expansion, and bolster the federal government's revenue. 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. . Web hardcover $30.00 paperback $17.00 kindle nook book ibook. . 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. 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. This government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. . 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. . 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. Daniel webster (ma) and sen. Hayne of . . . The Senate debates between Whig Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Democrat Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina in January 1830 started out as a disagreement over the sale of Western lands and turned into one of the most famous verbal contests in American history. Are we in that condition still? . 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. Read reviews from world's largest community for readers. . Webster-Hayne Debate. . 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. 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. . 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. 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. 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. We look upon the states, not as separated, but as united. . Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitution under which we sit. 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. . Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the constitutional question. Sir, I should fear the rebuke of no intelligent gentleman of Kentucky, were I to ask whether, if such an ordinance could have been applied to his own state, while it yet was a wilderness, and before Boone had passed the gap of the Alleghany, he does not suppose it would have contributed to the ultimate greatness of that commonwealth? . [was] fixed, forever, the character of the population in the vast regions Northwest of the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary servitude. There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of the South. I did not utter a single word, which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. . He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. . 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. 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. The Webster-Hayne debate, which again was just one section of this greater discussion in the Senate, is traditionally considered to have begun when South Carolina senator Robert Y. Hayne stood to argue against Connecticut's proposal, accusing the northeastern states of trying to stall development of the West so that southern agricultural interests couldn't expand. 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. 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.