In 1830, there were two highlighted U.S. senators on opposing parties; one was Daniel Webster of the Whig party and the other was Robert Y. Hayne of the Democratic party. In January of 1830, a series of debates between the two senators began over whether states have the right to nullify federal law and views on the Union. Webster stood with a Hamiltonian ideological school as he was for a centralized government and opposed nullification and Hayne stood with a Jeffersonian ideological school as he was for more power in the state governments and was arguing on behalf of nullification. Many sources were used to craft the arguments for both sides, such as The Constitution being used by both Webster and Hayne, but Hayne used his Compact Theory to …show more content…
We do not impose geographical limits on our patriotic feeling or regard; we do not follow rivers and mountains, and lines of latitude, to find boundaries, beyond which public improvements do not benefit us. We who come here, as agents and representatives of these narrow minded and selfish men of New England, consider ourselves bound to regard, with equal eye, the good of the whole, in whatever is within our power of legislation.” (Webster-Hayne 8). This was a good point to use in his argument because he is showing that the states work better united as one with a centralized government, rather than having state powers coerce each other to adopt the same laws and principles. In this speech, Webster used patriotism as a big persuasive factor to get the others in the Senate to gear more towards his side of the argument, which worked in his favor as after giving this speech, more people sided with his argument. Robert Y. Hayes, in my opinion, may be the most politically correct in this situation because he showed obvious faults in the centralized government that the state governments would be able to handle on their own if they had that