The quotation below is from Daniel Webster's debate with Robert Y. Hayne during the Nullification Crisis: Whence is this supposed right of the States derived? Where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the Union? [It] is a notion founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this government, and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold it to be a popular government, erected by the people; those who administer it, responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be. It is as popular, just as truly emanating from the people, as the State governments. It is created for one purpose; the State governments for another. It has its own powers; they have theirs. There is no more authority with them to arrest the operation of a law of Congress, than with Congress to arrest the operation of their laws. - Daniel Webster, January 26, 1830 Webster argued that state governments

Question

Braelyn Mcintyre

History

28 November, 12:12

The quotation below is from Daniel Webster's debate with Robert Y. Hayne during the Nullification Crisis: Whence is this supposed right of the States derived? Where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the Union? [It] is a notion founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this government, and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold it to be a popular government, erected by the people; those who administer it, responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be. It is as popular, just as truly emanating from the people, as the State governments. It is created for one purpose; the State governments for another. It has its own powers; they have theirs. There is no more authority with them to arrest the operation of a law of Congress, than with Congress to arrest the operation of their laws. - Daniel Webster, January 26, 1830 Webster argued that state governments

+1

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Mohamed Stout · Answer 1

Daniel Webster argued that state governments do not have the constitutional right to nullify federal laws.

The Nullification Crisis of 1832 occured during Andrew Jackson's presidency. In this case, the state of South Carolina was trying to nullify (void) the Tariff of "Abominations" (also known as the Tariff of 1828). South Carolinians hated this tariff because it made foreign nations less likely to trade with America, as they would be forced to pay an additional tax.

This is when South Carolina politicians (like John Calhoun) argued that the state could not follow any law that the state deemed unconstitutional. However, Daniel Webster argues in the excerpt that there is no legal precedent and nothing in the constitution that gives states this power. This showed Webster's support of Andrew Jackson and a federal government which was stronger than individual state governments.