What is the significance of the Webster-Hayne debate?
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 that took place on January 19–27, 1830 on the topic of protectionist tariffs.
Who won the Webster-Hayne debate of 1830?
Who Won the Webster-Hayne Debate of 1830? The dominant historical opinion of the famous debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Young Hayne of South Carolina which took place in the United States Senate in 1830 has long been that Webster defeated Hayne both as an orator and a statesman.
How long did the Webster-Hayne debate last?
The Webster-Hayne Debate was an unplanned Senate debate lasting for more than a week in 1830. Explore some background and a summary of the debate, including the issues that catalyzed it and motivated its duration.
Did Daniel Webster defeat Robert Young Hayne as an orator?
The dominant historical opinion of the famous debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Young Hayne of South Carolina which took place in the United States Senate in 1830 has long been that Webster defeated Hayne both as an orator and a statesman.
What did Webster and Hayne debate over?
The Webster–Hayne 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 19–27, 1830 on the topic of protectionist tariffs.
What was the focus of the Webster Hayne debate?
At the heart of his argument, Hayne asserted that states should have the power to control their own lands and—ominously—to disobey or "nullify" federal laws that they believed were not in their best interests.
Why was the Webster Hayne debate important?
Hayne's entry into the debate turned the issue of the sale of public lands into a clash between state sovereignty and national sovereignty, and he expounded these sovereignties in terms of rival and irreconcilable theories of constitutional construction and the nature of the federal Union.
What was being debated in the Webster Hayne debate of 1830?
In 1830, during a Senate debate on the sale of western lands, Hayne charged that senators from the industrial northeast sought to increase the power of the federal government at the expense of the states.
What was the Webster-Hayne debate quizlet?
The Webster-Hayne debate was between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, 1830 regarding protectionist tariffs. Calhoun, was a proponent of protective tariffs; later, he was a proponent of free trade.
Who was Daniel Webster and what did he support?
Webster was one of the most prominent American lawyers of the 19th century, and argued over 200 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1814 and his death in 1852. During his life, he was a member of the Federalist Party, the National Republican Party, and the Whig Party. Salisbury, New Hampshire, U.S.
What did Jackson toast in response to the Webster Hayne debate?
Livingston's ideas followed those of his boss, Andrew Jackson, who denied nullification during the course of the Webster-Hayne Debate with his memorable toast to Calhoun, Hayne, and the nullifiers, “Our federal Union: it must be preserved!”
Did Daniel Webster support or oppose protective tariffs?
Though he had previously opposed protective tariffs as unconstitutional (and bad for New England's shipping business) he changed his tune when it came to the Tariff of 1828. Known in the South as the Tariff of Abominations, the law offered significant protection for his region's growing textile industry.
What was Daniel Webster's view on nullification?
Daniel Webster, a senator from Massachusetts, believed that nullification was illegal and only the Supreme Court had the power to nullify federal law. Congress agreed to lower the tariffs of 1828 and passed a new tariff policy in 1832.
How did Daniel Webster and John Calhoun differ in their opinions about main purpose of the Constitution?
Webster believed that the Constitution was created to force both federal and state govermments to approve all laws, while Calhoun believed that it was created to give the U.S. Supreme Court the power to approve all laws.
Who argued in a famous debate with South Carolina's Robert Hayne that the people not the states created the Constitution?
Who argued in a famous debate with South Carolina's Robert Hayne that the people, not the states, created the Constitution? Daniel Webster.
Who favored internal improvements?
Alexander Hamilton, whose loose interpretation of the Constitution authorized the creation of a national bank, favored internal improvements to facilitate economic growth, but he thought that the Constitution prohibited the federal government from funding internal improvements such as canals.
How did Daniel Webster and John Calhoun differ in their opinions about main purpose of the Constitution?
Webster believed that the Constitution was created to force both federal and state govermments to approve all laws, while Calhoun believed that it was created to give the U.S. Supreme Court the power to approve all laws.
What sparked the nullification crisis of 1832?
The Nullification Crisis erupted when the South Carolina legislature passed an Ordinance of Nullification on November 24, 1832, declaring the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void within the state borders of South Carolina. President Jackson was furious that the Tariff of 1832 had been "nullified" by South Carolina.
Who argued in a famous debate with South Carolina's Robert Hayne that the people not the states created the Constitution?
Who argued in a famous debate with South Carolina's Robert Hayne that the people, not the states, created the Constitution? Daniel Webster.
What is the nullification doctrine?
Nullification is a legal doctrine, which argues that states have the ability — and duty — to invalidate national actions they deem unconstitutional. In its most overt manifestation, this form of resistance is used by state leaders to dispute perceived federal overreach and reject federal authority.
What was the debate between Hayne and Webster about?
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 of these ideas, however, are only parts of the main point.
What was the significance of the Webster-Hayne debate?
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. It was motivated by a dispute over the continued sale of western lands, an important source of revenue for the federal government. While the debaters argued about slavery, the economy, protection tariffs, and western land, the real implication was the meaning of the United States Constitution. Hayne and the South saw it as basically a treaty between sovereign states. Webster and the North treated it as binding the states together as a single union. Webster's articulation of the concept of the Union went on to shape American attitudes about the federal government. Now that was a good debate!
Why did Connecticut and other northeastern states want to slow down the pace of growth?
Connecticut and other northeastern states were worried about the pace of growth and wanted to slow this down. Well, the southern states were infuriated. To them, this was a scheme to give the federal government more control over the cost of land by creating a scarcity. 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 debate was on.
Who were the debaters in the debate?
The debaters were Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. In a time when the country was undergoing some drastic changes, this debate managed to encapsulate the essence of the growing tensions dividing the nation. See what I mean? Drama, suspense, it's all there. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll hopefully stay awake until the end of the lesson. What can I say? Historians love a good debate.
Who was the South Carolina senator who argued against the Connecticut proposal?
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. Hayne was a great orator, filled with fiery passion and eloquent prose.
Who won the Civil War debate?
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. Jackson himself would raise a national toast for 'the Union' later that year. 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.
Why did the federal government stop surveying the lands west of the Mississippi River?
Why? So they could finish selling the lands already surveyed. In 1830, the federal government collected few taxes and had two primary sources of revenue. One was through protective tariffs, high taxes on imports and exports. The taxes paid by foreign nations to export American cotton, for example, generated lots of money for the government. The other way was through the sale of federally-owned land to private citizens. That's what was happening out West.
What did Hayne charge in 1830?
In 1830, during a Senate debate on the sale of western lands, Hayne charged that senators from the industrial northeast sought to increase the power of the federal government at the expense of the states. Over the next ten days, a series of unplanned speeches between Webster and Hayne spelled out the terms of the nation’s growing sectionalism.
Who was Daniel Webster?
Daniel Webster served as a U.S. senator from Massachusetts from 1827 to 1841, and again from 1845 to 1850. In his three decades of public service as congressman, senator, and secretary of state, he represented the interests of New England’s growing manufacturing sector by supporting high tariffs and a powerful national government.
What was the object of the framers of the Constitution?
But, according to the gentleman’s [Webster’s] 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. . . .
What were the main issues of the 1830 debate?
During the course of the debates, the senators touched on pressing political issues of the day—the tariff, Western lands, internal improvements —because behind these and others were two very different understandings of the origin and nature of the American Union. Webster argued that the American people had created the Union to promote the good of the whole. Hayne argued that the sovereign and independent states had created the Union to promote their particular interests. 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. Nullification, Webster maintained, was a political absurdity. In this regard, Webster anticipated an argument that Abraham Lincoln made in his First Inaugural Address ( First Inaugural Address ). These irreconcilable views of national supremacy and state sovereignty framed the constitutional struggle that led to Civil War thirty years later. It is worth noting that in the course of the debate, on the very floor of the Senate, both Hayne and Webster raised the specter of civil war 30 years before it commenced.
What rights did the states have before the compact?
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 powers —it is incident to all sovereignty. Now, have they given away that right, or agreed to limit or restrict it in any respect? Assuredly not. 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. It was plenary then, and never having been surrendered, must be plenary now. . . .
Who wrote the Virginia Resolution?
7. Hayne quotes from the Virginia Resolution (1798), authored by Thomas Jefferson, to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). The Virginia Resolution asserted that when the federal government undertook the “deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of” powers not granted to it in the constitution, states had the right and duty to interpose their authority to prevent this evil.
What was the main design of the Constitution?
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. The people had had quite enough of that kind of government, under the Confederacy. Under that system, the legal action—the application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. Congress could only recommend—their acts were not of binding force, till the states had adopted and sanctioned them. Are we in that condition still? Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state construction? Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitution under which we sit. . . .
Why was Webster vilified?
During the course of the debate Webster was vilified for his association with the Hartford Convention of 1814. The secret convention of New England states resulted from what many in the North (mainly Federalists) felt was an unfair advantage given to the Southern States in the U S Constitution. Thomas Jefferson's Embargo of 1807, stopping trade with Great Britain, was detrimental to the New England states and its repeal in 1809 did nothing to quell the negative feelings of the Northerners toward the Federal Government. During the War of 1812 against Great Britain, New Englanders were not pleased with the manner in which President Madison was prosecuting the war and Massachusetts even refused to place their local militias under federal control. So, in 1814, a secret convention was called in Hartford, Connecticut of representatives from the New England states to discuss their relationship with the federal government.
What did Webster believe was the last shelter for liberty?
When Webster stepped up in the Senate chamber to reply on January 27, 1830, he defended both the Union and New England. During the course of the reply Webster defended his region. New England had begun the War of Independence and ultimately New England, he believed, would be the last shelter for liberty. Liberty and Union, Now and Forever; One and Inseparable echoed through the crowded chamber in his conclusion. Thirty-one years later his assurance of New England's role as the last shelter of liberty would prove prophetic.
Who was the moderate Federalist?
A moderate Federalist, George Cabot of Massachusetts, presided over the gathering. Over a two week period the delegates debated a number of issues, including seceding from the union. Calmer voices prevailed and the resolution to break away was voted down. Although a strong Federalist, Webster did not support the premises of the Hartford Convention. Although Webster was a strong unionist, during the debate, he was tarred with the same brush. Hayne accused him of being a "traitor" because of New England's strong feelings against the War of 1812.
Who was the New Englander who was upset by the Tariff of 1828?
Although the debate began in December of 1829 with Senator Foote's resolution to stop selling inexpensive western land, Daniel Webster soon became the object of South Carolina's upset over the Tariff of 1828. Not only was Webster a New Englander representing the mill owners of the Merrimack and Blackstone Rivers, he also had a personal financial interest in the textile industry.
What was the effect of the Webster debate?
The chief effect seems to have been to further polarize opinion on the great political and constitutional disputes of the day.
How long did it take for Hayne to reply to Webster's charge?
Hayne’s reply took the better part of two days. Obviously stung by Webster’s charge that South Carolina was insufficiently devoted to the Union, Hayne undertook an historical exegesis going back to the Revolution in which he defended her past service to the Union as selfless and heroic.
How did Webster introduce slavery?
In addition to reiterating the main points in his first speech, Webster introduced the subject of slavery by way of drawing an invidious distinction between the rapid growth and prosperity of Ohio versus the sluggish development of Kentucky. He attributed this difference to Ohio’s status as a free state and Kentucky’s as a slave state. Ohio owed her good fortune in this regard, he claimed, to New England’s support for the Northwest Ordinance which had banned slavery north of the Ohio river. [13] Since historians have described Webster’s oration as a nationalistic triumph which isolated South Carolina in the Union, it is necessary to digress here to make two points. First, how can Webster’s oration be described as “national” when he deliberately insulted all of the states in which slavery was legal? Second, how effective can a strategy of isolating the South be when one deliberately insults a border state like Kentucky, an action likely to drive that state into alliance with the Deep South? Though Clay was not offended, Kentucky’s other senator was, and no doubt many of her people were also. Webster spent much of his speech on a long exposition of National Republican constitutionalism. He argued that the Constitution was not a social compact but a permanent government made by the people of the nation acting in a collective capacity, not by the states. He argued that the right of deciding constitutional disputes resided solely in the Supreme Court. Were the states to have a right to share in this authority through interposition or nullification the national government would be rendered nearly powerless, for with 24 different interpreters of its powers it would be incapable of acting. The national government would bec ome at the mercy of the individual states just as was the old Confederal government, and it was this defect, he reminded the Senate, that it was the purpose of the new constitution to overcome. Therefore, such a doctrine could not be constitutional. He darkly warned that the actual attempt of any state to assert such an authority would be a form of rebellion. “I cannot conceive,” he said, “that there can be a middle course, between submission to the laws, when regularly pronounced constitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance, which is revolution or rebellion, on the other .”[14] Webster concluded his speech with a peroration directed at Hayne’s closing remarks in which he argued that the liberties of the people could be safeguarded only within the framework of the existing Union: “Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable.” [15] After Webster finished Hayne rose and spoke for about an hour in reply; Webster then rose for some brief final remarks. Yet the debate was by no means over. Benton had yet to finish his speech, and other senators would continue to rise for the next few months and give long orations on the sectional, historical, political, and constitutional issues raised by Benton, Hayne and Webster.
What was the scheme of injustice that Benton declared?
It was, he declared, “a most complex scheme of injustice, which taxes the South to injure the West, to pauperize the poor of the North.”. [3] Benton seemed to be proposing an alliance between the Western and Southern states to overthrow these policies.
What did Daniel Webster say in his speech?
Daniel Webster rose the next day and announced that “some of the opinions expressed by the gentleman from South Carolina” had rankled and shocked him. He delivered his speech in the form of a point by point rebuttal of Hayne’s remarks; in addition he pointedly criticized Southern institutions and principles.
How did Webster isolate the South?
According to the legend, Webster managed in the course of the debate to isolate the South, especially South Carolina, by discrediting her political principles of states’ rights, strict construction, and nullification, and exposing them as dangerous to the permanency of the Union.
What was Webster's paean to Union and Liberty?
It is further claimed that Webster’s peroration with its paean to “Union and Liberty, now and forever, one and inseparable” captured the imagination of the people and engendered a new spirit of nationalism.
