what is the Significance of webster/hayne debate?

Question

What was the significance of the webster/hayne debate?basically why is often considered the greatest debate ever to take place in the United States Senate?
56 minutes ago - 3 days left to answer.

Answer 1

It was not simply the eloquence of the main participants -- with speeches school children were long expected to memorize -- though Webster's classic windup to his second speech (partly posted below) warranted such attention.

The importance of the debate was that it brought into focus two conflicting views on the central issue of the NATURE of the Union-- and a whole cluster of fundamental issues about American government-- Webster defending a nationalist view against Hayne's states rights view.

This was the beginning of a period in which this central conflict became much more clarified (including through the nullification crisis between President Jackson and South Carolina).

For marked up copies of Hayne's and Webster's speeches, along with analysis, and point-by-point summaries:
http://www.constitution.org/hwdebate/hwdebate.htm

The following present GOOD summary of ISSUES -
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1187891
http://www.senate.gov/vtour/webhayn.htm

Though the climax of the debate came with these early exchanges in January, many others contributed to the larger debate which extended into March. Both the famous speeches of Hayne and Webster as well as those of Thomas Hart Benton, and those of several other participants may be read in the following book (in pdf format), which includes a helpful foreword.
The Webster-Hayne Debate on the Nature of the Constitution: Selected Documents
http://oll.libertyfund.org//files/1557/WebsterHayne0099_LFeBk.pdf


Oh, and here is Webster's famous windup:

"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 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?" 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 for ever, one and inseparable!"

Answer 2

Hayne's first speech:

He makes an overture to westerners who resent federal lands within their boundaries. His main point: They should cast the land problem in terms of state sovereignty, and ally themselves with southerners, whose opposition to the tariff was intertwined with the state sovereignty principle.
Webster's first speech:

The public lands are being sold as fast as they can be settled. To sell them cheaper would simply put them in the hands of speculators, and very likely retard their settlement.
The current policy is necessary due to the terms under which the lands were acquired.
New England is the west's true friend, having given the northwest, at least, a rational system of land sales, and having kept slavery out of the Northwest territory. New England has voted for all western measures, while the south has voted against them.
It is from the south – indeed from Mr. McDuffie, an associate of Hayne and Calhoun, that we have heard a distinct call to restrict westward immigration, while W. himself opposed restriction.
Speculations on the subtext of Webster's first speech:

In citing what the Northeast has done for the West, he blandly includes the keeping of slavery out of the Northwest, as if everyone would see this as a great thing. Was this designed to draw Hayne into a "labored defense of slavery"?
Hayne describes the effects of the tariff on the south, but does not use the word "tariff" – so directly connected to nullification. But Webster uses "tariff" as if it were synonymous with the American System, and uses it over and over. Why would a unionist represent unionism by its least popular aspect? Perhaps because it draws Hayne into explicit discussion of the tariff, and a defense of nullification, which Webster wants an opportunity to attack.
It could even be that Webster heaped extravagant praise on Nathan Dane, an attendee of the Hartford Convention (see below) to tempt Hayne into the confusing position of denouncing the reviled Hartford Convention, while defending a policy not unlike that of the Hartford Convention.
Hayne responds with a flashy speech with Shakespearean allusions, and quotations from famous English orators.

He taunts Webster with the "coalition", a milder codeword for the "corrupt bargain" which was supposed to have been struck between the east (Adams) and the west (Clay), and which threw its weight behind the American System.
He accuses Webster of not having supported the American System, and of only coming to support it as part of the "bargain".
He accuses Webster of inconsistency about whether the public lands should be used to generate revenue or not.
He attacks Nathan Dane and other New Englanders who sought to weaken the union in order to escape the special burdens they suffered in the War of 1812.
He defends slavery and attacks its enemies. He quotes a curious passage of Edmund Burke warning the English Parliament that for slaveholders "Freedom is ... not only an enjoyment, but a kind of rank and privilege", and, that being the case they will be that much more intransigent in defense of liberty.
He finally defends "the Carolina [nullification – a word he avoids] Doctrine". He tries to stand on high ground behind (his interpretation at least) Jefferson and Madison but defending nonetheless.
Webster's second speech:

He makes a witty insinuation that Hayne's speech had literally caused him to "lose his bearings", and he must start by regaining them.
He warms up by parrying several petty accusations by Hayne.
He defended his consistency on the public lands issue.
He counters the claim that N. Eng.'s support for the West was bought by the "corrupt bargain".
He describes the origins of the American System and how South Carolina was at first strongly behind it.
He defends his consistency on the tariff and accuses the south of inconsistency.
He accuses Hayne of both excoriating the Hartford Convention and using it as a precedent.
He makes a direct argument against nullification theory.
He contrasts New England's response to the embargo, which he describes as thoroughly constitutional, against that advocated in the nullification doctrine.
He returns to the direct attack on nullification.
He describes a scenario of Hayne and the SC militia trying to stop the customs, and argues how it would lead to civil war.
He paints a frightful and dramatic picture of what will happen if the Union falls apart, and praises "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!".
In response to a rejoinder by Hayne, he logically refutes the derivation of nullification doctrine from the premise that the constitution is a compact between the states.