During the 1830s the issue on whether if the national government should have limited power and if the states should have rights to have power have been highly debated between two senators, Robert Hayne and Daniel Webster. Both senators have given political speeches about their judgement of the federal government limited power and the states’ rights. “The crowded senate galleries thrilled to the eloquence of the two parliamentary gladiator,” said in Document 2. Senator Hayne and Webster both have spoken in the house of the senators about national government and states having power. Furthermore, both senators address the use of taxation. “The South is acting on a principle she has always held scared- resistance to unauthorized taxation,” says …show more content…
Even though both of the senators share several of similarities there are more differences within each other. Senator Robert Hayne, born in South Carolina, and representor of the South requests that the power of the national government should be limited. “… federal government in all or any of its own authority,” according to Document 1 by Senator Hayne. The federal government have too much power and it is not justice for the people nor the states if the national government withholds all the power and not include the decisions or proposes of the states. The states should have the right on whether they want to follow the federal government law or not and should be able to have a say so on what goes. Otherwise, Senator Daniel Webster, native son of New Hampshire and adopted son of Massachusetts, representor of the North argues that the states should not have any power of the national government. “… people and not the states had formed the Constitution of 1787,” said Senator Webster in Document. The people of the union always have the power and the federal government is the …show more content…
Regarding to the argument on whether if the states should have power and if the federal government should have limited, both Senator Hayne and Webster make valid claims on the power of the states and the government. Senator Webster makes the most valid view point on which the federal government should not have limited power and the states should have no power. “… preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder,” revealed by Senator Webster in Document 2. If the national government has limited power, then there will be no use of the union. If states shall have power, then the rights of the union and federal government will be tarnished. States should not withhold power over the union because decisions will not be made upon the union but by only certain individuals. Every state should all follow the same laws with the country they are in and should not be separated like enemies. However, “… there was a better solution than nullification if the people disapproved of their fundamental law,” proclaims Senator
According to article 2 “The state's government will retain all powers that are not specifically given to the national Congress.. ” (Williamsburg, 2009) In other words the states will have all the powers that are not appointed to the national government, by the Articles of Confederation. According to article 9 “ The national congress will have the power to declare war, negotiate foreign treaties, settle disputes between states, regulate currency, direct the operations of land and naval forces, borrow money from the states.” (Williamsburg, 2009) A elaboration of this is that, The national government is limited to the powers, that are stated above, and has no control of anything else. Since the national government had little to no control over any of the state's, laws that were past inside of these states became unjust and faced little repercussions from the national government, because of the limitations that were put into place by the articles of
At the convention, the founders were debating about how many representatives in the Congress should each state allowed to have. For example, James Madison, who came from Virginia, one of the larger states, suggested that representation should be proportional to the state’s population (Hart et al. 109-110). Coming from a state with larger population had influenced Madison’s proposal, for he reasoned that since Virginia has a large population of people, so more representatives are needed to represent more people. However, the states with a smaller population disagreed with this proposal and came up with a proposal that would counter Madison’s proposal. Paterson, who came from New Jersey, one of those states with smaller population, proposed a plan in which equal number of people should be elected from each state for representation in the Congress (Hart et al. 109-110). It was evident to see how coming from a smaller state had affected Paterson’s proposal, for he feared
While the government of the United States owes its existence to the contents and careful thought behind the Constitution, some attention must be given to the contributions of a series of essays called the Federalist Papers towards this same institution. Espousing the virtues of equal representation, these documents also promote the ideals of competent representation for the populace and were instrumental in addressing opposition to the ratification of the Constitution during the fledgling years of the United States. With further reflection, the Federalists, as these essays are called, may in turn owe their existence, in terms of their intellectual underpinnings, to the writings of the philosopher and teacher, Aristotle.
Webster was a representative from the North, a New Hampshire resident, who strongly opposed the Tariff of 1816. The view of the New England territory was for some protection, but not the entire amount outlined in the tariff. Their reasoning was that New England still maintained many of its reliance's on shipping and trade. Industry had not completely taken over in those areas, and because the tariff would limit trade in the New England ports, it would directly effect the New England economy. Webster took a strong stand in opposing this tariff for these very reasons, he in order to maintaining the well being of the northern states. Webster also stood against Clay's insistence for better transportation amongst the states. He went along with the New England belief that better roads would encourage migration towards the lands of the West, therefore dwindling the population of the Northern states.
Despite the downfall of the Federalist Party in the early nineteenth century, John Marshall continued to exert a strong Federalist influence on the government, which acted as a catalyst to ignite political controversy. In the McCullough vs. Maryland trial of 1819, Marshall deemed Maryland taxing the second bank of the United States as being unconstitutional, which gave even more power to the central government. (Doc D) Majority of the American population was against his ruling and refuted it because many people believed that having a strong central government was bad because if a bad decision was made, it would have affected the entire union, whereas if there was a strong state government, a bad decision would have just hurt the state. However, this was not the only time where the economy had failed in the early 1800’s. In 1816, John Randolph addressed congress and stated that it was unjust to tax the poo...
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
Continuing the metaphor of faction as a disease, Madison labels “[a] republic” as “the cure for which we are seeking”. Madison notes that a republican government differs from pure democracy in that the delegation of the government is smaller and can thus achieve efficient action. Another contrast lies also in the extent to which a republic has influence over a “greater sphere of country”. The passing of public views “through the medium of a chosen body of citizens” allows for refinement of ideas due to the influence of elected officials’ wisdom and is “more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves”. To protect against the caprices of wicked men, the number of representatives of the people will be a quantity that stymies the influence of the few but is able to, as Madison states, “guard against the confusion of a multitude”. Madison then references his belief in the common sense and good will of men in that “the suffrages of the people” is likely to result in the election of men most deserving and fit for their roles as representatives and lawmakers. Madison presents an avowal that counters one of the Anti-Federalists’ major grievances: “[t]he federal Constitution forms a happy combination” with “the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures”; Anti-Federalists feared that a stronger
The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.
Nullification is a precursor to secession in the United States as it is also for civil wars. However, in contrast, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions did not suggest that states should secede from the union. Under the direct vigilance and radical views of Calhoun, he suggested that states should and could secede from the union if they deem a law was unconstitutional. Calhoun’s reputation as a “Cast Iron” proved fittingly as compromises were reached for the proposed Tariffs. The southern states contribution to the financial welfare of the union as a result of slavery was undoubtedly substantial, but as history unfolded, it was not a just means to financial stability. His views of constitutional propriety was for the “privileges of minority” rather than for the “rights of the minority.” [2]
To define the terminology of federalism to a simplistic way is the sharing of sovereignty between the national government and the local government. It is often described as the dual sovereignty of governments between the national and the local to exert power in the political system. In the US it is often been justified as one of the first to introduce federalism by the ‘founding fathers’ which were developed in order to escape from the overpowered central government. However, federalism in the United States is hitherto uncertain where the power lies in the contemporary political system. In this essay I will outline and explain how power relationship alternates between states and federal government. Moreover I will also discuss my perspective by weighing the evidence based upon resources. Based on these resources, it will aid me to evaluate the recent development in the federal-state relationship.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
The opposing argument serves as a perfect gateway to the topic of relationship between Federal and State government. In the United States, the Supremacy Clause serves...
Despite the fact that America’s economy was heavily influenced by government interference and favoritism under John Quincy Adams and the American System, by 1832 Andrew Jackson, the Champion of the Common Man, jeopardized his political security in the interest of both preserving every man’s right to opportunity and upholding a nonpartisan economy. We can draw insight from Jackson’s disgust for banks, or rather for any act of government that gives a special advantage to one group over another. In Jackson’s letter to Congress justifying his Bank Veto Message, he argues, “when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages... make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society… have a right to complain of the injustices of their government.” In the preceding months, Jackson was in the midst of his presidential campaign for reelection when his opponents put political pressure on him by fast tracking the Bank Bill. Jackson, however, remained steadfast in his belief that the proposed bank was unconstitutional and thus he vetoed the bill. Not surprisingly, Jackson became the object of political slander. In his reply to Jackson’s veto, Daniel Webster complains, “[This message] raises a cry that liberty is in danger, at the very moment when it puts forth claims to powers heretofore unknown and unheard of. It effects alarm for public freedom, when nothing endangers that freedom so much as its own unparalleled pretenses.” In other words, Webster proposed that through Jackson’s overuse of the veto, he was not only holding congress hostage, but also subverting democracy. On the contrary, the establishment of Jacksonian Democracy expanded the liberties of the common
Daniel Webster is considered one of the greatest orators in the history of the American senate. In fact, his speech “Reply to Hayne” is considered to be the most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress. Daniel was a senator for Massachusetts and a prominent figure among Northerners. Through his life he was a part of three different parties: Adams, anti-Jacksonian, and Whig. This speech was widely considered to be contrary to the ideals of the Whig party and after giving it Daniel Webster was never fully trusted again by his party(24 Annuls).
In spite of the prominence of the states in everyday life, the most demanding public policy questions former to the American Civil War involved discussions over the possibility of national power with most Americans believing it should remain partial. Yet federalism was still the center of political arguments. The Constitution did not report if states did nor did not reserve any remaining sovereignty in the powers given to the national government. The fact that the states were much more capable in accomplishing governmental purposes adequately t...