Daniel Webster (January 18,
1782 – October 24, 1852) was a leading American senator from
Massachusetts during the period leading up to the Civil War. Webster’s “Liberty & Union” Speech (or
“The Second Reply to Hayne,” delivered in the U. S. Senate on January 26-27,
1830) argues against the proposed doctrine of nullification (the alleged right
of a state to defy or refuse to obey a federal law). It is considered one of
the greatest speeches on the Constitution during the first half of the 19th
century. Following are excerpts:
“THERE YET REMAINS to be performed,
Mr. President, by far the most grave and important duty which I feel to be
devolved on me by this occasion. It is to state, and to defend, what I conceive
to be the true principles of the Constitution under which we are here assembled…
The inherent right in the people to
reform their government I do not deny; and they have another right, and that is
to resist unconstitutional laws without overturning the government. It is no
doctrine of mine that unconstitutional laws bind the people. The great question
is-Whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or
unconstitutionality of the laws? On that, the main debate hinges…
I say, the right of a state to annul a law of Congress cannot be maintained but on the ground of the inalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. I admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to when a revolution is to be justified. But I do not admit that, under the Constitution and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a state government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstance whatever.
This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government and the source of its power. Whose agent is it? Is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? If the government of the United States be the agent of the state governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling it; if it be the agent of the people, then the people alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or reform it…
I say, the right of a state to annul a law of Congress cannot be maintained but on the ground of the inalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. I admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to when a revolution is to be justified. But I do not admit that, under the Constitution and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a state government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstance whatever.
This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government and the source of its power. Whose agent is it? Is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? If the government of the United States be the agent of the state governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling it; if it be the agent of the people, then the people alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or reform it…
It is, sir, the people's
Constitution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people,
and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared
that this Constitution shall be the supreme law. We must either admit the
proposition or dispute their authority. The states are, unquestionably,
sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected by this supreme law. But
the state legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are yet not
sovereign over the people. So far as the people have given power to the general
government, so far the grant is unquestionably good, and the government holds
of the people and not of the state governments. We are all agents of the same supreme
power, the people…
This government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. It is not the creature of state legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it for the very purpose, among others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on state sovereignties…
This government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. It is not the creature of state legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it for the very purpose, among others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on state sovereignties…
The people, then, sir, erected this
government. They gave it a Constitution, and in that Constitution they have
enumerated the powers which they bestow on it. They have made it a limited
government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it to the
exercise of such powers as are granted; and all others, they declare, are
reserved to the states or the people…
But while the people choose to
maintain it as it is, while they are satisfied with it and refuse to change it,
who has given, or who can give, to the state legislatures a right to alter it,
either by interference, construction, or otherwise? Gentlemen do not seem to
recollect that the people have any power to do anything for themselves. They
imagine there is no safety for them, any longer than they are under the close
guardianship of the state legislatures. Sir, the people have not trusted their
safety, in regard to the general Constitution, to these hands. They have
required other security, and taken other bonds.
They have chosen to trust
themselves, first, to the plain words of the instrument, and to such
construction as the government themselves, in doubtful cases, should put on
their own powers, under their oaths of office, and subject to their
responsibility to them; just as the people of a state trust their own state
governments with a similar power.
Second, they have reposed their
trust in the efficacy of frequent elections, and in their own power to remove
their own servants and agents whenever they see cause,
Third, they have reposed trust in
the judicial power, which, in order that it might he trustworthy, they have
made as respectable, as disinterested, and as independent as was practicable.
Fourth, they have seen fit to rely,
in case of necessity, or high expediency, on their known and admitted power to
after or amend the Constitution, peaceably and quietly, whenever experience
shall point out defects or imperfections.
And, finally, the people of the
United States have at no time, in no way, directly or indirectly authorized any
state legislature to construe or interpret their high instrument of government,
much less to interfere, by their own power, to arrest its course and operation…
I profess, sir, in my career hitherto, to have kept steadily in view the prosperity and honor of the whole country, and the preservation of our federal Union. It is to that Union we owe our safety at home, and our consideration and dignity abroad. It is to that Union that we are chiefly indebted for whatever makes us most proud of our country… It has been to us all a copious fountain of national, social, and personal happiness.
I have not allowed myself, sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might he hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counselor in the affairs in this government whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil.
God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original luster, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart -- Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!”
I profess, sir, in my career hitherto, to have kept steadily in view the prosperity and honor of the whole country, and the preservation of our federal Union. It is to that Union we owe our safety at home, and our consideration and dignity abroad. It is to that Union that we are chiefly indebted for whatever makes us most proud of our country… It has been to us all a copious fountain of national, social, and personal happiness.
I have not allowed myself, sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might he hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counselor in the affairs in this government whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil.
God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original luster, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart -- Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!”
______________________
1 comment:
To see a recently discovered photo of Daniel Webster, visit www.kaplancollection.com
Post a Comment