Download A Brief Summary of the Webster

A Brief Summary of the Webster-Hayne Debate:




Hayne's First Speech:
He makes an overture to westerners who resent federal lands within their boundaries. His
main point: They should cast the land problem in terms of state sovereignty, and ally
themselves with southerners, whose opposition to the tariff was intertwined with the
state sovereignty principal.
Webster's First Speech:
o The public lands are being sold as fast as they can be settled. To sell them cheaper
would simply put them in the hands of speculators, and very likely retard their
settlement.
o The current policy is necessary due to the terms under which the lands were
acquired.
o New England is the west's true friend, having given the northwest, at least, a
rational system of land sales, and having kept slavery out of the Northwest
territory. New England has voted for all western measures, while the south has
voted against them.
o It is from the south - indeed from Mr. McDuffie, an associate of Hayne and
Calhoun, that we have heard a distinct call to restrict westward immigration,
while W. himself opposed restriction.
[Speculations on the subtext of Webster's first speech]
o In citing what the Northeast has done for the West, he blandly includes the
keeping of slavery out of the Northwest, as if everyone would see this as a great
thing. Was this designed to draw Hayne into a "labored defense of slavery"?
o Hayne describes the effects of the tariff on the south, but does not use the word
"tariff" -- so directly connected to nullification. But Webster uses "tariff" as if it
were synonymous with the American System, and uses it over and over. Why
would a unionist represent unionism by its least popular aspect? Perhaps because
it draws Hayne into explicit discussion of the tariff, and a defense of nullification,
which Webster wants an opportunity to attack.
o It could even be that Webster heaped extravagant praise on Nathan Dane, an
attendee of the Hartford Convention (see below) to tempt Hayne into the
confusing position of denouncing the reviled Hartford Convention, while
defending a policy not unlike that of the Hartford Convention.
Hayne responds with a flashy speech with Shakespearean allusions, and quotations from
famous English orators.
o He taunts Webster with the "coalition", a milder codeword for the "corrupt
bargain" which was supposed to have been struck between the east (Adams) and
the west (Clay), and which threw its weight behind the American System.
o He accuses Webster of not having supported the American System, and of only
coming to support it as part of the "bargain".
o He accuses Webster of inconsistency about whether the public lands should be
used to generate revenue or not.
o He attacks Nathan Dane and other New Englanders who sought to weaken the
union in order to escape the special burdens they suffered in the War of 1812.
o

He defends slavery and attacks its enemies. He quotes a curious passage of
Edmund Burke warning the English Parliament that for slaveholders "Freedom is
... not only an enjoyment, but a kind of rank and privilege", and, that being the
case they will be that much more intransigent in defense of liberty.
o He finally defends "the Carolina [nullification - a word he avoids] Doctrine". He
tried to stand on high ground behind (his interpretation at least) of Jefferson and
Madison, but he defending it nonetheless.
Webster's Second Speech
o He makes a witty insinuation that Hayne's speech had literally caused him to "lose
his bearings", and he must start by regaining them.
o He warms up by parrying several petty accusations by Hayne.
o He defended his consistency on the public lands issue.
o He counters the claim that N.Eng.'s support for the West was bought by the
"corrupt bargain".
o He describes the origins of the American System and how South Carolina was at
first strongly behind it.
o He defends his consistency on the tariff and accuses the south of inconsistency.
o He accuses Hayne of both excoriating the Hartford Convention and using it as a
precedent.
o He makes a direct argument against nullification theory.
o He contrasts New England's response to the embargo, which he describes as
thoroughly constitutional, against that advocated in the nullification doctrine.
o He returns to the direct attack on nullification.
o He describes a scenario of Hayne and the SC militia trying to stop the customs,
and argues how it would lead to civil war.
o He paints a frightful and dramatic picture of what will happen if the Union falls
apart, and praises "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!".
o In response to a rejoinder by Hayne, he logically refutes the derivation of
nullification doctrine from the premise that the constitution is a compact between
the states.