Webster-Hayne Debate
The Webster-Hayne debate was a series of back-and-forth speeches between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina in January 1830. What started as a debate over the sale of western lands blossomed into an argument over the nature of the American Union itself, anticipating the Nullification Crisis and, indeed, the American Civil War.
Background: Sectional Rivalries
By the close of the 1820s, the United States had become increasingly divided along sectional lines. The American South, a largely agrarian society driven by slave labor, often found itself at odds with the industrializing North; gone were the days of political calmness and stability that had marked the 'Era of Good Feelings' (c. 1815-1825), with debates like the one surrounding the Missouri Compromise drawing the line between the 'free' states of the North and the 'slave' states of the South. In late 1828, the main point of contention was the implementation of the Tarriff of 1828 – better known as the 'Tarriff of Abominations' – that had been signed by John Quincy Adams in the waning months of his presidency. This was a protective tariff designed to help bolster Northern industries by placing fresh duties on European competitors. These European nations placed retaliatory tariffs on several American goods, including cotton, the staple crop of the South. Many Southerners, therefore, saw this tariff as helping Northern industrialists while suffocating their own economy. Because of the tariff, Adams quickly became the most hated man in the South, contributing to his 1828 election loss to Andrew Jackson.
One of the leading opponents of the tariff was John C. Calhoun, who had served as Adams' vice president and was now set to hold that same office under Jackson. Although he had been a staunch nationalist earlier in his career, Calhoun had since made a sharp heel turn to become a fierce advocate for states' rights. One of these rights, he argued, was that of nullification, which referred to the ability of a state to 'nullify' a federal law it believed to be unjust, until such a time as that law became enshrined in the Constitution. In his 35,000-word, anonymously written pamphlet on the topic of the 'Tarriff of Abominations', Calhoun stated that the tariff was "unconstitutional, unequal, and oppressive; calculated to corrupt the public morals and to destroy the liberty of the country" (quoted in nps.org). His answer, of course, was nullification; states, like his native South Carolina, should be able to hold conventions, in which they could vote to nullify federal acts such as this tariff. The idea was foreboding to many Unionists (like Jackson himself) who feared nullification to be the first step toward secession and, ultimately, the collapse of the Union. In December 1829, as Congress convened for the first time since Jackson's inauguration, the question laid heavy on their minds and would soon lead to one of the most dramatic and eloquent series of debates the Senate had yet witnessed.
Continue reading...
