(Introduction: The debates between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina concerned the supremacy [highest power or authority] of the federal government over state governments. Many Southerners, in response to tariff laws that favored the North, supported the concept of “nullification.” Nullification held that states had the right to disobey laws of Congress they thought were unconstitutional. Webster argued that nullification would destroy the Union. Calhoun supported nullification. In March 1833, they debated the issue on the floor of the United States Senate. Portions of this debate are excerpted on the following screens.
The Constitution Not a Compact Between Sovereign States: Daniel Webster
I deny that any man can state accurately what was done by the people in establishing the present Constitution, and then state accurately what the people, or any part of them, must now do to get rid of its obligations, without stating an undeniable case of the overthrow of government. I admit, of course, that the people may, if they choose, overthrow the government. But, then, that is revolution. The doctrine now contended for is, that, by nullification or secession, the obligations and authority of the government may be set aside or rejected, without revolution. . . .
The Constitution does not provide for events which must be preceded by its own destruction. SECESSION, therefore, since it must bring these consequences with it, is REVOUTIONARY, and NULLIFICATION is equally REVOLUTIONARY. What is revolution? Why, Sir, that is revolution which overturns, or controls, or successfully resists, the existing public authority; that which arrests the exercise of the supreme power; that which introduces a new paramount [ranking higher than any other] authority into the rule of the State. Now, Sir, this is the precise object of nullification. It attempts to supersede [to cause to be set aside and replaced by something else] the supreme legislative authority. It arrests the arm of the executive magistrate. It interrupts the exercise of the accustomed judicial power. Under the name of an ordinance, it declares null and void, within the State, all the revenue laws of the United States. . . .
If Carolina now shall effectually resist the laws of Congress; if she shall be her own judge, take her remedy into her own hands, obey the laws of the Union when she pleases and disobey them when she pleases, she will relieve herself from a paramount power as distinctly as the American Colonies did the same thing in 1776. In other words, she will achieve, as to herself a revolution. . . .
To allow State resistance to the laws of Congress to be rightful and proper, to admit nullification in some States, and yet not expect to see a dismemberment [to divide up or mutilate] of the entire government, appears to me the wildest illusion, and the most extravagant folly.)
#1 Determine Central Ideas: What is Webster’s central argument? Cite examples that Webster uses to support his argument.
#2 Determine Central Ideas: How would you summarize Calhoun’s argument?
#3 Compare Points of View: How do both speakers use the Constitution in their speeches?
#4 Compare Points of View: With which Senator’s argument do you think the Framers would agree?