Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0/Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0 (L0pht Heavy Industries, Inc.)(1997).ISO/tezcat/Historical/Webster.txt

Text File | 1996-07-08 | 10KB | 169 lines

I posted this to the list some time ago, but since we have many
new people now, and the Federalist/ant-Federalist debate has
once more surfaced here, I am going to call once again upon the
aid of this great orator to say on my behalf what I could not
say nearly so well myself.

-Steve

<begin reposted material>

The following is taken from one of the great classics of Federalist thought,
Daniel Webster's "Reply to Hayne".

I must admit that I had been entirely unaware of the existence of this
speech, said to be the greatest speech of America's greatest orator. I was
fortunate enough a few years back to find on the 50 cent rack at the local
used bookstore a truly remarkable history book which I would recommend to
any here who are able to obtain a copy. It was published in 1937 and is
entitled "Bulwark of the Republic - A Biography of the Constitution" by
Burton J. Hendrick. This is essentially a Federalist view of the Constitution
and its enemies. The author declares his intention as follows:

"The succeeding pages treat the Constitution as biography, and biography
in two senses. It is the story of the instrument itself, its formation,
the causes that brought it to life, its struggles for survival, its
triumphs and its failures. It is again a survey of the men most identified
with its progress. Who were chiefly responsible for its creation? Who in
subsequent years were its enemies, whi its friends? Consider the greatest
Amercian statesmen - what did they think of this document? What did they
do to uphold or destroy it?"

Hendrick sets the stage for this most remarkable speech. giving the
backgrounds of Webster and John C. Calhoun (on whose behalf representative
Hayne made the speech which prompted Webster's reply). He discusses the
question of nullification which was the immediate issue at hand in the
speech. And he discusses the impact of this 75 page, four hour 30,000 word
extemparaneous address upon the nation.

"The reply was printed in many editions and circulated by the hundreds of
thousands. It found its way into every American farmhouse and into
practically every American city dwelling, and in a brief period had become
the textbook of the new Americanism. Ideas which up to that year had been
the matter of formal reasoning before courts of law or dry discussion in
legal treatises suddenly became the topic of debate with the common man.
The Constitution, which had previously been a distant abstraction, a piece
of paper, venerated it may be but hardly realized as a personal
possession, entered almost as a living thing into the consciousness of the
people. That conception of Nationalism which had been its dominating note
now rose defiantly to challenge the disintegrating forces still working
for the reestablishment of the ancient system."

Presently, we here on <list name deleted> are pondering questions which
have been the
burning issues of our Constitutional system from the beginning. Are we
one nation or many? What is the nature and extent of our national union?
What are the legitimate powers of a federal government. I think it is only
appropriate to present one of the ablest debaters ever to speak to these
great issues in the hope that his powers of insight and clarity can reach
down through the years and inform our debates today.

Hendrick gives two substantial excerpts of Webster's speech. (The whole,
is of course available in Webster's collected speeches in any good
library). The first is my favorite, as it goes straight to the heart of
the conflicting views on what action the government might properly take in
the area of internal improvements. The last is the conclusion of the
speech, of which Hendirck says:

"The passage, of course, is one of the most famous in American literature,
but no account of the speech that aims to convey its spirit and epitomize
its nationalist purpose would be complete that ignored it."

Hendrick, of course, writes these words in 1937. Can it be that we have
fallen so far in such a relatively short time that even in my own
generation we were not taught these words in our schools, or by our
parents?

And now, the excerpts themselves:

" 'What interest', asks he, 'has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio?' Sir,
this very question is full of significance. It develops the gentleman's
whole political system, and its answer expounds mine. Here we differ. I
look upon a road over the Alleghenies, a canal around the falls of the
Ohio, or a canal or a railway from the Atlantic to the western waters, as
being an object large and extensive enough to be fairly said  to be for
the common benefit. The gentlweman thinks otherwise, and this is the key
to his construction of the powers of the government. He may well ask what
interest has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio. In his system, it is true,
she has no interest. In that system Ohio and Carolina are different
governments and different countries, connected here, it it true, by some
slight and ill-defined bond of union, but in all main respects separate
and diverse. The gentleman therefore only follows out his own principles;
he does no more than arrive at the natural conclusion of his own
doctrines...Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason
thus. Our *notion* of things is entirely different. We look upon the
states, not as separated, but as united. We love to dwell on that union,
and on the mutual happiness which it has so much promoted, and the common
renown which it has so greatly contributed to acquire. In our
contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same country, states
united under the same general government, having interests common,
associated, intermingled. In whatever is within the proper sphere of the
constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one.
We do not impose geographic limits to 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 the selfish men of New England,
consider ourselves as bound to regard with an equal eye the good of the
whole, in whatever is within our powers of legislation. Sir, if a railroad
or a canal beginning in South Carolina and ending in South Carolina,
appeared to me to be of national importance and national magnitude,
believing, as I do, that the power of government extends to the
encouragement of works of that description, if I were to stand up here and
ask 'What interest has Massachusetts in a railroad in South Carolina?' I
should not be willing to face my constituents. These same narrow-minded
men would tell me that they had sent me to act for the whole country and
that one who possessed so little comprehension, either of intellect or of
feeling, one who was not large enough, both in mind and in heart, to
embrace the whole, was not fit to be entrusted with the interest of any
part."

.....................

"I profess, sir, in my carreer 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 the most proud of our country. That Union
we reached only by the discipline of our virtues in the severe school of
adversity. It had its origin in the necessities of disordered finance,
prostrate commerce and ruined credit. Under its benign influence these
great interests imediately awoke as from the dead and sprang forth with
newness of life. Every year of its duration has teemed with fresh proof of
its utility and its blessings; and although our territory has stretched
out wider and wider and our population spread farther and farther, they
have not outrun its protection and its benefits. 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 be hidden
in the dark recess behind. I have not cooly 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 counsellor in the
affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on
considering, not how the Union may best be 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 for the last time to the sun in
heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and disordered fragments
of a once glorious Union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent;
on a land rent with civil feuds, and 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 lustre, 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?' or those other words of derision and folly 'Liberty
first and Union afterwards'; but everywhere, spread all over in characters
of living light, blazing in 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!"

-Steve
Other sites are invited to mirror these files, with attribution to RFM.