ipl-logo

Liberty And Union Speech By The Citizens Of South Carolina And Daniel Webster

1213 Words5 Pages

1). In both documents Daniel Webster and the citizens of South Carolina convey a strong argument regarding the topic of states being able to nullify federal laws. In the Liberty and Union speech, Daniel Webster addresses the topic and opposes the doctrine by stating how the government and Constitution was created by and for the people and on how the American people have preserved their own chosen Constitution for the past 40 years since it has been created. Because of this, the American people have prospered happily, grown and become stronger with America, as the country has progressed. While Daniel Webster stated valid points regarding South Carolina’s Senator Robert Haynes, in 1832, South Carolina held a convention to represent their official position on the nullification of federal laws towards President Andrew Jackson and the tariffs of 1832. …show more content…

In response to this, South Carolina created the Ordinance of Nullification, in which they justify their thoughts by explaining that Congress exceeded their power by imposing higher tariffs on foreign imports when it has no benefit for the Southern states which is why they supported the idea of states being able to nullify federal laws. After reading both documents, Daniel Webster’s speech was more persuasive since it acknowledges the Country as a union, and while South Carolina’s argument makes a valid point, Daniel Webster discusses how America is one whole country. Webster also discusses how all the states should be helping one another and that not a stripe shall be erased or pulled out, nor a single star in the American flag shall be obscured. This extends back to the moral idea of America being a country, not with seperate states but as the United

Show More
Related

  • How Did Andrew Jackson Be Satisfied To Mark The Face Of A 20 Dollar Bill

    1071 Words  | 5 Pages

    Initially, he decided to raise tariffs on imported goods which the north was quite alright with, while Southerners were ignited with outrage as they prospered from the collection of imported goods. Threatening to secede from the United states, John C. Calhoun, the vice president, aided the South by declaring the states’ rights to nullify laws they deemed unconstitutional, stating, “The Union–next to our liberty, most dear.” (Appleby, 2000). This implied that their own liberties should be the primary priority before the importance of the Union. Jackson remains obstinate to his initial choice, causing Calhoun to resign and serve in the Senate to continue his debate for the equality of the southerners, knowing that he wouldn’t be able to change his mind.

    Read More

  • Why Did Jackson And Calhoun Contribute To The Civil War

    849 Words  | 4 Pages

    Nullification was a controversial constitutional theory started by John C. Calhoun. He came up with the idea because he believed the tariff of 1816 was responsible for fall of South Carolinas economy. When in fact it was the exhausted farm land in the state which had caused the downfall. With his future political dreams resting on how he met this challenge in his home state he developed the theory of nullification. The theory stated that a state can suspend, within its boundaries, a federal law that was thought to be unconstitutional.

    Read More

  • How Did Andrew Jackson Justify The Argument Against The Tariff Of 1832?

    592 Words  | 3 Pages

    Andrew Jackson believed in asserting the power of the federal government. It became clear in the dispute that arose South Carolina and the issue of nullification in the year of 1832 to 1833. South Carolina acted out against the Tariff of 1828. They campaigned heavily against the tariff, justifying their arguments with the principles set out in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions written by Jefferson and Madison to support states’ rights. They supported their case by also arguing that the U.S. constitution allowed the states to individually nullify federal laws for the whole union.

    Read More

  • Did The Constitution Lead To The Failure Of The Union Dbq

    796 Words  | 4 Pages

    It is true to say that by the 1850’s the Constitution went from an instrument of unity to a source of tension, and lead to the failure of the union. The Constitution originally helped maintain peace, but when issues over slavery appeared, it failed to provide the guidance the union needed. Because of differing interpretations of the Constitution and the multiple conflicts, it lead to disunion. Because not everyone could agree on what the constitution implied, it led to the failure of the union. Document E states: “The words ‘slaves’ and ‘slavery’ are not to be found in the Constitution, and therefore that it was never intended to give any protection or countenance to the slave system, it is sufficient to reply..

    Read More

  • Nullification Crisis Dbq

    493 Words  | 2 Pages

    This document was a threat to the United States telling anyone who read it that if the tariff wasn’t taken off the South that South Carolina would secede. This meant that South Carolina would become its own country. The book also said that the states had the right to seceded if they wanted to, it was there right to reject the laws. This document didn’t have any real power in the House of Representatives when brought to

    Read More

  • Roger Sherman's Speech At The Constitutional Convention

    335 Words  | 2 Pages

    Roger Sherman was born on April 19th, 1921 in Newton, Massachusetts. When he was two years old, his father moved the family to Stoughton. He attended a grammar school at the age of thirteen, and also received an education from Reverend Samuel Danbar. Rev. Danbar got an education from Harvard and was the minister at Sherman’s Congregational Church. Sherman became a member of the Congregational Church in 1742, where he later became a Deacon

    Read More

  • To What Extent Was Andrew Jackson A Bad President

    1012 Words  | 5 Pages

    Based on the major events that occurred in Jackson’s life, our group has come to the conclusion that Andrew Jackson was a bad president. This final resolution was reached after visiting numerous sources regarding both perspectives of this argument. The events that make up our argument comprise of the elimination of the Bank of the United States, the legalization of the Indian Removal Act, and other small but major incidents. We will also be dismantling several opposing arguments, such as the Jacksonian Democracy, and thus reinforcing our frame of mind. Firstly, Andrew Jackson is a substandard president due to his eradication of the Bank of the United States.

    Read More

  • Why Jackson Was Blamed For The Nullification Crisis

    1083 Words  | 5 Pages

    (Khan Academy, 2016) This was a very unrealistic and terrible idea, as this would mean any state could nullify any law they wanted and blame it on being “unconstitutional”. Because of the pamphlet, South Carolina began to claim that The Tariff of Abominations was unconstitutional and planned to refuse to follow it. Jackson heard about this, and despite being a fan of the South, knew this would set the stage for the entire South to secede from the U.S, as he thought of “Nullification as a prelude into secession” (Khan Academy, 2016). So, Jackson began lowering The Tariff of Abominations to appease South Carolina and other

    Read More

  • The Gullification Of Virginia And Kentucky Resolutions

    730 Words  | 3 Pages

    The southerners had originally expected Andrew Jackson to reduce tariffs, considering he was from the south, but he instead made a compromise that gained the support of most northerners and about half of southern Congress members. South Carolina, however, was not satisfied with this. They were quick to call for nullification on the tariff, especially after John C. Calhoun wrote anonymously the South Carolina Exposition and Protest, and that is how the 1832 Ordinance of Nullification came about. This action taken by South Carolinians was most likely swayed by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson’s theories of nullification in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Jefferson’s charged rhetoric had introduced to the people the evidence that nullification is part of their given rights, which stayed present in the South

    Read More

  • The Primary Source: Vice President John C. Calhoun

    474 Words  | 2 Pages

    The primary source is a speech delivered by Daniel Webster in response to Robert Hayne, a senator from South Carolina, during a debate in the United States Senate in January 1830. The debate centered around the issue of nullification, which was the idea that individual states had the right to nullify or reject federal laws they deemed unconstitutional within their borders. Webster’s quote, “I understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina to maintain, that it is a right of the State legislatures to interfere, whenever, in their judgment, this government transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of its laws,” (Daniel Webster, p. 247), highlights the central issue of the debate, which is the assertion that state legislatures have the right to nullify federal laws if they believe the government exceeded its constitutional authority. This concept caused a major disagreement between people who believed in states' rights and those who supported a strong central government. Senator Daniel Webster asserts that the United States government is created and answerable to the people, not the State legislatures.

    Read More

  • Webster's Essay On Property Vs Freedom

    132 Words  | 1 Pages

    Webster states that equal land distribution is more important to freedom, than free speech, trial by jury, or other rights, because “wherever we cast our eyes, we see this truth, that property is the basis of power; and this, being established as a cardinal point, directs us to the means of preserving our freedom.” (111) With this statement, Webster presents the people with the idea, that free speech, trial by jury, and other rights does not present the same significance of power or freedom, that owning property does. Therefore, people should be fighting for laws, which abolish the right to inherit land, rather than the right to speak freely. Once one accumulates enough land, they hold the power to freely express the rights, which are referred

    Read More

  • Mill's Arguments For Freedom Of Expression

    1419 Words  | 6 Pages

    Sabine Comploi 15710649 Freedom of Expression As for now, a society with limitless freedom of speech has yet to exist. There is no such thing as complete free speech, it is always carefully balanced with other political values. While free speech is a human right, guaranteed in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, International Law accepts restrictions on free speech to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, public health and morals (Lawson and Bertucci, 1996, p.815). In line with this, the Irish Constitution States that 'You have the right to freely express convictions and opinions.

    Read More

  • Dbq Civil Rights Act Of 1860

    1024 Words  | 5 Pages

    “The lack of… nationality, I believe, is one of the great evils of the times…” Senator John Sherman stated on February 10, 1863. The United States had been split into sections from the beginning, and it created a lack of unity and togetherness. In Document A, the reader can acquire from the reading that South Carolina (and later many other states) seceded from the Union because of states’ rights. Document A states that an amendment (specifically the

    Read More

  • Patrick Henry Give Me Liberty Speech Analysis

    315 Words  | 2 Pages

    ATTENTION GETTER: On this very day, 241 years ago, in front of the second Virginia Convention, a man stood up and gave a speech. The passion he conveyed through his words would be immortalized in american culture. PSYCHOLOGICAL ORIENTATION: “Give me liberty or give me death!”.

    Read More

  • Constitutional Differences Between Virginia And Kentucky Resolutions

    993 Words  | 4 Pages

    In addition to this, when John C. Calhoun seek to abolish the federal tariff, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were invoked during the Nullification Crisis. The resolutions also influenced the Southern succession in the 1860s which resulted in the American Civil War. For Jefferson, himself, they have gained three advantages from the resolutions in the following way: one, it showed them the reasoning of the states who rejected the resolutions; two, it acted as a firm protest against the principle of the constitution as well as the president; and three, it express their warm attachment to the union of their sister states which they believed will be

    Read More

More about Liberty And Union Speech By The Citizens Of South Carolina And Daniel Webster

Open Document