American History

In 1830, a debate ensued in the halls of the United States Senate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina.  The debate initially stemmed from the issue of the sale and purchase of government lands in the west.  From this issue would come forth a much bigger issue  sovereignty.  It was an issue of which was held in high regard, the national (federal) government or the local (state) government.  Webster took up the nationalist position while Hayne took up the sovereignty of the states position.  Several questions needed to be taken into consideration How does one define the Union  Is the federal government the ultimate arbiter or judge in certain issues or do the states have a say on the issues as well

While both senators delivered powerfully eloquent speeches to drive home their point, it could be said that neither of them were absolutely correct.  When the Constitution was first drafted in 1787, the framers were then trying to address the issues of the day.  The infant United States of America was going through a period of economic and political instability and the existing system then, the Articles of Confederation, did little to address the problems.  When the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia on that fateful day, they have decided to establish a strong, central government for the purpose of ensuring the survival of the new nation born out of political struggle and revolution.  The creation of the new law of the land was not very easy and as a result, compromises were made to make it acceptable to all parties which would eventually lead to its ratification by the states.  Despite the ratification, there were still issues that refused to go away and one of them was the issue of sovereignty where the debate was whose sovereignty would stand above.  Hayne was one of those who subscribed to the notion that the Union, as he and his ilk defined it, was a league of states enjoying autonomy and that this autonomy was to be recognized by the federal government in Washington.  Whatever went on in the states were strictly the affairs of the states concerned especially when he mentioned this

Never will the Federal Government, or rather those who control its operations, consent to emancipate the West, by adopting a wise and just policy, looking to any final disposition of the public lands, while the people of the West can be kept in subjection and dependence, by occasional donations of those lands and never will the Western States themselves assume their just and equal station among their sisters of the Union, while they are constantly looking up to Congress for favors and gratuities  (Belz).

It can be inferred here that Hayne was trying to state that states, especially the new ones being created in the west, should not be too dependent on Washington for their needs but rather be self-sufficient and take the initiative in pursuing what was for their best interests.  It is also worth noting that Hayne made use of the word subjection which could be loosely interpreted as subjugation should one subscribe to the same stand as Hayne.  It was quite clear Hayne and his ilk were batting for and asserting the rights of the states to exercise their sovereignty, in this case, they should be the ones to settle the (current) issue on their own.

From the eyes of those with an opposing position to Hayne, it appeared apparent that he was trying to win over the western states to their camp.  At that time, the United States was already at the state of expanding westward.  As these western territories were being rapidly populated by settlers from the east, they eventually became part of the Union and if one were to scrutinize Haynes speech, he was currying the favor of his colleagues from these states to be on their side.  This was something that was not lost to Webster when his turn came to speak out.  Although he referred to Hayne as a gentleman, he was quick to make a rebuttal of the arguments made by Hayne.  For one, he somehow too offense on the way Hayne rebuked the east (northeastern states), calling them obnoxious when he said that Hayne, has yet recited the indictment against us, with the air and tone of a public prosecutor. He has summoned us to plead on our arraignment and he tells us we are charged with the crime of a narrow and selfish policy of endeavoring to restrain emigration to the West, and, having that object in view, of maintaining a steady opposition to Western measures and Western interests  (Belz).

Webster, being a skilled orator had somehow managed to bait Hayne into reacting the way he expected him to when he raised the dangers of consolidation which appeared to be an anathema to those who espoused the sovereignty of the states.  It can be inferred here that Hayne and his associates feared an encroachment of the rights of the states.  One must also take into account that disposition of lands was not the only issue that concerned the issue of sovereignty.  This issue also affected another raging issue that even the Constitutional Convention could not resolve  slavery.  Looking at the issue, it would appear that the southern senators were trying to win over their colleagues in the west in what they hoped would be a long-term coalition against the northeastern states on the issue of slavery where the practice was abolished.  They feared that consolidation would require the imposition of abolition in the southern states which were not so keen in letting go of the practice.  It was apparent here that there was a much deeper agenda in the minds of the southern states when they reacted to the issue of federal lands in the new states in the west.  They were hoping to extend their influence in these new states.  Hayne brought this up in his second speech before the Senate, citing this issue was dividing the Union as there were states that practiced slavery and there were those that did not.  He went further yto justify the practice by saying

If slavery, as it now exists in this country, be an evil, we of the present day found it ready made to our hands. Finding our lot cast among a people, whom God had manifestly committed to our care, we did not sit down to speculate on abstract questions of theoretical liberty. We met it as a practical question of obligation and duty. We resolved to make the best of the situation in which Providence had placed us, and to fulfill 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 (Belz).

By examining this line, it can be inferred that Hayne, speaking in behalf of the slave-owning people of the South, was justifying the practice of slavery, going so far to even say that as slave owners, they were doing a great service to the negroes by caring for them instead of leaving them in a wretched, pathetic state they were when they were first acquired and even said that they could not be sent back to where they came from for it would be committing a great disservice to them.  His position stated that the states had to right to interpose if Washington would threaten their (state) rights, particularly on this issue.  Webster made a riposte in his second speech where he stated that I regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest of evils, both moral and political (Belz).  He even went so far to go back to make use of history of how the trend toward slavery was heading.  But it was quite apparent that Webster was speaking for the rest of the northern states on the issue of slavery although he made his personal stand very clear.

All in all, the debate between Webster and Hayne underscored one of the nagging issues that was still pervading in the United States at the time which was the clash of sovereignty between that of the federal government in Washington, DC and that of the individual states, especially those which have enjoyed a greater degree of autonomy long before the drafting and ratification of the Constitution.  Webster closed his final address by reaffirming his belief in a strong Union

What is all this worth Nor those other words of delusion and folly, Liberty first, and Union afterwards but every where, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole Heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heartLiberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable (Belz)

The United States was created with a rather unusual structure that called for a strong central government while recognizing the autonomy of the states that comprise it.  It was apparent that those opposed to the domination of Washington were afraid of a return to tyranny which was the reason for breaking away from England.  But the unionists or nationalists, made it clear and even tried to allay these fears that rights would not be compromised though they asserted that (federal) national law supersedes state laws to ensure order and harmony.  The framers of the Constitution saw the folly of having states exercise way too much autonomy which nearly brought them into conflict and this would have led to greater instability.  They also saw that the survival and security of the nation lay in their unity.  In the end, it was proven that Webster was right when the tensions between the state led to the civil war thirty years later which finally resolved this issue once and for all on the supremacy of the federal government.