Outline of Hayne-Webster Debate

Hayne's First Speech:

{#} {¶} [1]Why do we oppose a 'mere inquiry'?
{#} {¶} [2]The broader issue of how to treat the public lands.
{#} {¶} [3]Federal Land Policy: Too generous or too harsh?
{#} {¶} [4]An Unprecedentedly Harsh Policy
{#} {¶} [5]The Current System At Work in the New State of Missouri
{#} {¶} [6]The Devoted South - Brothers in Affliction to the West
{#} {¶} [7]Beneficial Results if We Treat the West As We Ought To
{#} {¶} [8]Evils of an Easy Federal Revenue -- Land Sales
{#} {¶} [9]Evils of Easy Federal Revenue -- The Tariff
{#} {¶} [10]Independence of the States - the Lifeblood of our Liberty
{#} {¶} [11]Restraint of Western Emmigration == A Manufactury of Cheap Factory Labor
{#} {¶} [12]America - An agricultural people - Why Encourage Manufacturing?
{#} {¶} [13]Let's Not Even Talk About Distribution (of the Public Lands).
{#} {¶} [14]Granted -- The U.S. Can't Quite Give Up the Public Lands Immediately
{#} {¶} [15]States are too often pacified by little bribes from the federal gov't.
{#} {¶} [16]We should turn the lands over to the states once the debt is paid.
{#} {¶} [17]Final Summary

Webster's First Reply

{#} {¶} [1a] Land Policy Good as it is
{#} {¶} [1b] Land is selling as fast as it can
{#} {¶} [2] I must dispute some of H's opinions.
{#} {¶} [2a] He calls U.S. Policy harsh
{#} {¶} [2b] U.S. Policy had not been harsh
{#} {¶} [2c] We paid in blood and dollars for these lands, unlike the Europeans.
{#} {¶} [3] Results of U.S. Land Policy: Ohio
{#} {¶} [4] We can't give the lands away
{#} {¶} [4a] The Crown Lands and the Revolution
{#} {¶} [4b] The gov't promised to use them for the common benefit
{#} {¶} [4c] The gov't promised to keep them as a common fund
{#} {¶} [5] W: H admits no give-away till Nat. Debt paid - not good enough
{#} {¶} [6] Revenue == Consolidation == Evil?
{#} {¶} [7] Calculating the value of the Union?
{#} {¶} [8] Webster == unionist == national republican
{#} {¶} [9] Too much fervor to pay the debt -- because it furnishes (Horror!) a common interest among states?
{#} {¶} [10] To say the public land policy corrupts is ridiculous
{#} {¶} [11] States can't tax themselves
{#} {¶} [12] Generosity but no givaway
{#} {¶} [13] Defending the east
{#} {¶} [14] New England didn't start the tariff
{#} {¶} [15] New England, friend and wise counselor of the West
{#} {¶} [16] Nathan Dane and the Ohio River
{#} {¶} [17] New England, not the south, has always voted for Western Measures
{#} {¶} [18] South Carolina may in fact want to restrict immigration to the west -- not New England.
{#} {¶} [19] I'm just defending my state

Hayne's Second Speech

{#} {¶} [1] Surprised to have to defend his previous remarks
{#} {¶} [2] Is W. afraid of Benton (Banquo's ghost)?
{#} {¶} [3] The states have grown strong in spite of your "protection".
{#} {¶} [4] Nathan Dane no friend of the west
{#} {¶} [5] W says treat the public lands as a treasure
{#} {¶} [6] W says don't treat the public lands as a treasure
{#} {¶} [7] He says one thing then the opposite. WHat does he mean?
{#} {¶} [8] The south doesn't judge by the money standard
{#} {¶} [9] How can a public fund be used for so many local purposes?
{#} {¶} [10] If the West accepts federal Internal Improvements, they lose their birthright for a mess of pottage.
{#} {¶} [11] W. thinks the debt forms a bond between the states. If so, it is a base kind of bond; a pecuniary interest is a base interest
{#} {¶} [12] Ohio, slavery, weakness, and strength
{#} {¶} [12a] Slavery - Not our fault.
{#} {¶} [12b] Africans inferior; we have done better by them than the 'philanthropic' north
{#} {¶} [13] The south not weak on account of slavery.
{#} {¶} [13a] We have the economic power
{#} {¶} [13b] Matthew Carey says knock off this knocking of the south
{#} {¶} [14] One white man can control 10 slaves
{#} {¶} [15] FALSE PHILANTHROPY
{#} {¶} [16] Slavery doesn't sap character - Burke quote
{#} {¶} [17] The Framers' Consolidation isn't Webster's version
{#} {¶} [18] Whigs and Tories
{#} {¶} [19] Webster: A fallen angel of free trade
{#} {¶} [20] If it's not your tariff, why defend and hold onto it?
{#} {¶} [21] The South saved the Union and now you attack her
{#} {¶} [22] 1812: South Carolina stood for New England's honor
{#} {¶} [23] N.E. Federalists: The War Party in Peace - the Peace Party in War
{#} {¶} [24] They took back their complaints against England, and abused those who fought
{#} {¶} [25] At the darkest moment, they abused patriots trying to do their duty
{#} {¶} [26] The Hartford Convention
{#} {¶} [27] In Secrecy they voted
{#} {¶} [28] Battle of New Orleans broke all this up and saved the union
{#} {¶} [29] Thos. Jefferson said rebel rather than accept N.Eng consolidation
{#} {¶} [30] Josiah Quincy: Secede amicably if they can, violently if they must
{#} {¶} [31] True friends of the Union are not consolidators
{#} {¶} [32] Corruption by favors - Randolph's dogs: Towser and Sweetlips.
{#} {¶} [33] 'Carolina Doctrine' is doctrine of '98
{#} {¶} [34] Doctrine of '98 sustained by Madison
{#} {¶} [35] Madison: Constitution a compact between states
{#} {¶} [36] Reaffirmations: Kentucky Resolutions
{#} {¶} [37] Reaffirmation: Jefferson in '21 and '25.
{#} {¶} [38] Jefferson: Dissolution over Despotism == Carolina doctrine
{#} {¶} [39] SC goes 'not a step further' than Mass. went.
{#} {¶} [40] We act on principal, and to preserve the union

Webster's Second Reply

{#} {¶} [1] Taking our bearings - the Mariner
{#} {¶} [2] Something rankling
{#} {¶} [3] W. 'slept on' H's speech?
{#} {¶} [4] Why pick on H. and not Benton?
{#} {¶} [5] Who's Afraid of Banquo's Ghost?
{#} {¶} [6] Mr. Dane and W's 'attack on slavery'
{#} {¶} [7] 'Missouri Question' - a tactic to keep northerners out of office
{#} {¶} [8] Ordinance of 87 - education - sacredness of contracts
{#} {¶} [9] Slavery exclusion of Ordance of 87 was not a southern measure
{#} {¶} [10] Mr. Dane; Hartford Convention wasn't my convention
{#} {¶} [11] I deny any inconsistency - 'metaphysical scissors'
{#} {¶} [12] I never said 'hug the lands as a great treasure'
{#} {¶} [13] South, not north has wanted to stop western immigration
{#} {¶} [14] H: What interest has SC in a canal in Ohio?
{#} {¶} [15] New Eng. sees U.S. as one country
{#} {¶} [16] Cases calling for federal help in local projects
{#} {¶} [17] 'Constitutional Scruples' - the kindest interpretation of S.C.'s opposition to Internal Improvements; not a reproach
{#} {¶} [18] H's insulting suspicion of others' motives
{#} {¶} [18a] Ordinance of '87, and more recent examples
{#} {¶} [18b] Relief measures of '20 and '21. Here's 'how, when, and why'!
{#} {¶} [19a] With the world a peace, we face new market competition
{#} {¶} [19b] Taking stock of our economy in 1815 - how to improve?
{#} {¶} [20] WhenW. decided to support internal improvements, he was following SC leadership!
{#} {¶} [21] S.Carolina in 1816 ESSENTIAL to system of tariffs, internal improvements
{#} {¶} [22] S.Carolina (McDuffie) routs the anti-tariff radicals
{#} {¶} [23] Calhoun helps defeat an anti-internal improvement test vote
{#} {¶} [24] SC now wants to nullify - as unconstitutional - such laws as she once strongly supported
{#} {¶} [25] Calhoun: A guiding star gone astray
{#} {¶} [26] From nothing ever said to me ...
{#} {¶} [27] A common debt is a common bond - not that debt is a good thing
{#} {¶} [28] Another misconstruction - on consolidation
{#} {¶} [29] H. wants 'Not a shilling of fixed revenue'
{#} {¶} [30] W. inconsistent on the tariff? NO! he says
{#} {¶} [31] Reiterating: N.Eng. did not originate the tariff
{#} {¶} [32] 'Carrying the war into enemy country'
{#} {¶} [33] Having his cake and eating it too.
{#} {¶} [34] Political Grandparents
{#} {¶} [35] Who do I 'attack'? Not the state of SC ...
{#} {¶} [36] The Hartford Convention -- Mr H's precedent?
{#} {¶} [37] Let us praise SC and MA heroes together
{#} {¶} [38] My gravest duty: To defend the constitution
{#} {¶} [39] We agree on fundamental right of rebellion
{#} {¶} [40] Interference with Federal laws UNDER the Constitution?
{#} {¶} [41] No Middle Ground
{#} {¶} [42] Inquiry into the origin of our government.
{#} {¶} [43] SC will rebel over a tariff like the one she supported in 1816
{#} {¶} [44] Will each state decide matters that affect us all?
{#} {¶} [45] SC: 'No collision' with England in 1775?
{#} {¶} [46] New England and the Embargo - No precedent for nullification
{#} {¶} [47] 'The great Dexter' took the case
{#} {¶} [48] N.Eng. lost the case and acquiesced
{#} {¶} [49] What use to say a case (for implementing nullification) must be 'clear, deliberate...'?
{#} {¶} [50] There would be no union if N.Eng. had followed S.C's course.
{#} {¶} [51] Do VA resolutions of '98 really support SC doctrine?
{#} {¶} [52] The People's Constitution - established the law and the arbiter
{#} {¶} [53] Limited powers - but with an arbitrator
{#} {¶} [54] How would nullification work? Initial confrontation.
{#} {¶} [55] How will these acts be characterized if we fail? Treason.
{#} {¶} [56] This state control will subvert the Union
{#} {¶} [57] This doctrine would enfeeble the constitution.
{#} {¶} [58] The Union a great object.
{#} {¶} [59] Dark recesses, fraternal blood? -- or Liberty and Union forever!
{#} {¶} [60] 'Compact' theory does not imply what Mr. H. says it does