What did Hayne and Webster argue in the Senate?
The Senate debates between Whig Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Democrat Senator Robert Y. 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.
What is the significance of the Webster Hayne debate?
For generations, school children remembered the Webster-Hayne Debate by memorizing the ending to Daniel Webster’s Second Reply to Robert Y. Hayne. Its soaring articulation of nationalism and American nationhood—“Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable”—became a catchphrase for what American union meant.
What did Hayne argue?
Hayne argued that the South, which had “everything to lose and nothing to gain,” fought the war for “the protection of Northern shipping and New England seamen,” while Webster’s allies, “the war party in peace, and the peace party in war,” sought to escape the burdens of that conflict.
What issue was at hand with the Webster Hayne debate what were Hayne’s and Webster’s point of views?
According to Hayne, the fundamental issue in the debate was “the right of a State to judge of the violations of the Constitution on the part of the Federal Government, and to protect her citizens from the operations of unconstitutional laws.” Hayne said that Webster’s doctrine—that “the Federal Government is the …
What did Webster say concerning state and national law?
In Webster’s view, the fundamental question was: “Whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws?” He held that the Constitution of the United States “confers on the Government itself, to be exercised by its appropriate Department, and under its responsibility to the …
How many cases did Daniel Webster argue before the Supreme Court?
200 cases
How does Webster feel about states rights?
Against conscription he took an extreme states-rights position, even hinting at nullification of federal laws when he said the state governments had a solemn duty to “interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power.”
What was McCulloch’s argument?
Maryland argued that as a sovereign state, it had the power to tax any business within its borders. McCulloch’s attorneys argued that a national bank was “necessary and proper” for Congress to establish in order to carry out its enumerated powers.
What did Daniel Webster think about the bank?
Senators Henry Clay and Daniel Webster believe that the National Bank has popular support and wants to use it against Jackson during the election of 1832 so Clay can win the presidency.
Did Daniel Webster support the second bank?
In particular, he formed an alliance with two powerful senators, Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. Clay and Webster were nationalists who strongly supported the national bank and believed the federal government should be very active in economic matters, even if the Constitution did not specifically grant it that power.
What was the result of Jackson’s veto of the National Bank?
Henry Clay wanted to run for president, he had Webster felt that Jackson’s Veto would help Clay defeat Jackson in the 1832 election. What was the result of Jackson’s’ Veto of the renewal of the Second Banks charter? He ordered all government deposits withdrawn from the bank, and placed into smaller state banks.
Why was the veto of the National Bank Bad?
The bank’s charter was unfair, Jackson argued in his veto message, because it gave the bank considerable, almost monopolistic, market power, specifically in the markets that moved financial resources around the country and into and out of other nations.