In the debate, Webster argued that states did not have the power to nullify a federal law. He also argued that states could not secede from the Union. Daniel Webster held several offices throughout his career, including Senator from Massachusetts.
Daniel Webster strongly opposed nullification and believed that the federal government was above the states. This is made clear in the Webster-Hayne Debate of 1830, where Webster argued against pro-nullification South Carolina senator Robert Hayne.
Daniel Webster
slavery
whether or not states had the right to nullify a federal law (ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ*:・゚✧
whether or not states had the right to nullify a federal law (ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ*:・゚✧
http://www.ehow.com/about_5070480_significance-websterhayne-debate.html This website gives you the resolution and everyone's personal view!! it helped me tremendously!!
The Webster-Hayne Debate was between a man named Daniel Webster and a man named Robert Hayne.
Daniel Webster strongly opposed nullification and believed that the federal government was above the states. This is made clear in the Webster-Hayne Debate of 1830, where Webster argued against pro-nullification South Carolina senator Robert Hayne.
Daniel Webster
Daniel Webster
Daniel Webster and Henry Clay were the two men involved in the "Great Debate."
slavery
In the Webster-Hayne debate of 1830, Senators Robert Hayne and Daniel Webster engaged in a heated discussion primarily centered around states' rights versus federal authority. Hayne argued for the rights of states to nullify federal laws and emphasized the importance of state sovereignty, while Webster defended the supremacy of the federal government and the Union. The debate highlighted the growing sectional tensions in the U.S. and set the stage for future conflicts over states' rights and federal power. Ultimately, Webster's eloquent defense of the Union and national unity resonated strongly, shaping public opinion at the time.
whether or not states had the right to nullify a federal law (ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ*:・゚✧
whether or not states had the right to nullify a federal law (ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ*:・゚✧
The Webster-Hayne debate of 1830 focused on the issue of state nullification of federal laws. Daniel Webster argued against the idea, emphasizing the supremacy of the federal government and the importance of maintaining a strong union. Robert Hayne, on the other hand, supported nullification as a means for states to protect their interests and limit federal power.
The Webster-Hayne debate, occurring in 1830, primarily revolved around the issues of states' rights versus federal authority, especially in the context of the protection of individual liberties and the expansion of the nation. Daniel Webster argued for a strong federal government to preserve the Union and prevent disunion, while Robert Hayne defended the rights of states to nullify federal laws and promote regional interests, particularly concerning westward expansion and the influence of the South. This debate highlighted the growing tensions over sectionalism and foreshadowed the conflicts that would later lead to the Civil War.