Webster–Hayne debate


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. The heated speeches were unplanned and stemmed from the debate over a resolution by Connecticut Senator Samuel A. Foot calling for the temporary suspension of further land surveying until land already on the market was sold. Webster's "Second Reply to Hayne" was generally regarded as "the most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress."
Webster's description of the U.S. government as "made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people," was later paraphrased by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address in the words "government of the people, by the people, for the people." 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 its state seal.

Analysis

The 1830 Webster–Hayne debate centered around the South Carolina nullification crisis of the late 1820s. Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster's "Second Reply" to South Carolina Senator Robert Y. Hayne was received as a great oratorical celebration of American nationalism and unity, particularly its argument that the American federal government was responsible to the American people, rather than to state legislatures. However, the speech also supported the sectional interests of Republican politicians in the Northeast—the tariffs at the core of the nullification crisis were intended to protect domestic industrial production—while eliding New England's own history of defying federal lawmakers. Webster's peers in Massachusetts responded warmly to the speech's defense of New England in both private correspondence and public resolutions, collaborating with printers, newspapers, and fellow politicians to ensure that Webster's preferred version of the remarks was widely published in the wake of the debate.

Schouler's analysis