THE WEBSTER-HAYNE DEBATE. THE BEGINNING OF THE NORTHSOUTH
DISPUTE ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION DURING THE ANTEBELLUM PERIOD
1
Katedra Doktryn Polityczno-Prawnych,
Wydział Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
Дата публикации: 2019-12-18
Studia Politologiczne 2018;49
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА:
СТАТЬЯ:
The Author analyses a famous debate in the United States between Senator Daniel
Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina that
took place on January 19–27, 1830 on the topic of protectionist tariffs. These
constitutional debate gave fateful utterance to the differing understandings of the
nature of the American Union that had come to predominate in the North and the
South. To Webster the Union was the indivisible expression of one nation of people,
but to Hayne was the voluntary compact among sovereign states. The Author
presents Hayne’s argument for states’ right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law
which that state has deemed unconstitutional, and Webster response for Supreme
Court jurisdiction. Their classic expositions of their respective views framed the
political conflicts that culminated at last in the secession of the Southern states
and war between advocates of Union and champions of Confederacy.
PEER REVIEW INFORMATION
Article has been screened for originality
ЛИТЕРАТУРА (37)
1.
Barnett R., The Original Meaning of The Judicial Power, Boston University Working Paper 03-18.
2.
Bartlett I.H., Daniel Webster as a Symbolic Hero, „The New England Quarterly” 1972, vol. 45, nr 4.
3.
Calhoun J.C., Union and Liberty. The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun, Indianapolis 1992.
5.
Dubofsky M., Daniel Webster and the Whig Theory of Economic Growth: 1828–1848, „The New England Quarterly” 1969, vol. 42, nr 4.
6.
Ellis R.E., Aggressive Nationalism. McCulloch v. Maryland and the Foundation of Federal Authority in the Young Republic, Oxford 2007.
7.
Ellis R.E., The Union at Risk. Jacksonian Democracy, States’ Rights, and the Nullification Crisis, Oxford–New York 1989.
8.
Fields W., The Reply to Hayne: Daniel Webster and the Rhetoric of Stewardship, „Political Theory” 1983, vol. 11, nr 1.
9.
Freehling W., The Road to Disunion, Volume I: Secessionists at Bay 1776–1854, New York 1990.
10.
Freehling W.W., Prelude to Civil War. The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816–1836, New York and London 1966.
12.
Hall K.L., Patrick J.J., The Pursuit of Justice. Supreme Court Decisions that Shaped America, Oxford 2006.
13.
Howe D.W., What Hath God Wrought. The Transformation of America, 1815–1848, Oxford 2007.
14.
Jefferson T., The Works of Thomas Jefferson, (Correspondence and Papers 1816–1826), New York 1905, XII.
16.
Koch A., Ammon H., The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. An Episode in Jefferson’s and Madison’s Defense of Civil Liberties, „The William and Mary Quarterly” 1948, vol. 5, nr 2.
17.
McDonald F., States’ Rights and the Union. Imperium in Impero, 1776–1876, Lawrence 2000.
18.
McManus E.J., Helfman T., Liberty and Union: A Constitutional History of the United States, New York and London 2014.
19.
Newmyer R.K., John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court, Baton Rouge 2001.
20.
Newmyer R.K., Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story: Statesman of the Old Republic, Chapel Hill 1985.
21.
Parrington V.L., Główne nurty myśli amerykańskiej. Romantyczna rewolucja w Ameryce 1800–1860, przekł. H. Katz, Warszawa 1970.
22.
Peterson M.D., The Great Triumvirate: Webster, Clay, and Calhoun, New York and Oxford 1987.
23.
Purcell E.A. Jr., Evolving Understandings of American Federalism: Some Shifting Parameters, 50 New York Law School Review 2006.
24.
Read J.H., Living, Dead, and Undead: Nullification Past and Present, „American Political Thought” 2012, vol. 1, nr 2.
25.
Sheidley H. W., The Webster-Hayne Debate: Recasting New England’s Sectionalism, The New England Quarterly, vol. 67, nr 1 (Mar., 1994).
26.
Sheidley H. W., The Webster-Hayne Debate: Recasting New England’s Sectionalism, „The New England Quarterly” 1994, vol. 67, nr 1.
27.
Smith C. R., Daniel Webster and the Oratory of Civil Religion, Columbia and London 2005.
30.
Tomza A., Spór o poprawną interpretację Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych. Od pasywizmu do aktywizmu sądowego, Łódź 2016.
31.
Tulejski T., Kontraktualizm versus federalizm. Argument konstytucyjnoprawny Johna Caldwela Calhouna w okresie kryzysu nullifikacyjnego, „Studia Prawno-Ekonomiczne” 2015, XCVII.
32.
Vandenburg Ames H. (red.), State Documents on Federal Relations: The States and the United States, Philadelphia 1906.
34.
Wilson L. Major, „Liberty and Union”: An Analysis of Three Concepts Involved in the Nullification Controversy, „The Journal of Southern History” 1967, vol. 33, nr 3.
36.
Wolfe Ch., The Rise of Modern Judicial Review. From Constitutional Interpretation to Judge-made Law, Lanham 1994.
37.
Zavodnyik P., The Age of Strict Construction. A History of the Growth of Federal Power, 1789–1861, Washington 2007.
Поделиться
| ISSN: | 1640-8888 |
Czasopismo naukowe «Studia Politologiczne» uzyskało dofinansowanie z Ministerstwa Edukacji i Nauki w ramach programu „Rozwój Czasopism Naukowych” (projekt numer RCN/SN/0713/2021/1). Wysokość otrzymanego dofinansowania wynosi 79 607 zł. Celem projektu jest realizacja działań zmierzających do podniesienia poziomu praktyk wydawniczych i edytorskich, zwiększenia wpływu Czasopisma na rozwój nauki oraz dalszego zwiększania prestiżu Czasopisma w międzynarodowym obiegu naukowym. Okres realizacji projektu wynosi 24 miesiące.
© 2006-2024 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
Мы используем файлы cookies для улучшения пользовательского интерфейса и анализа трафика.
Данные собираются и обрабатываются нами и Google Analytics (more).
Вы можете изменить настройки cookies в своем браузере. Продолжая использовать сайт, вы соглашаетесь с этими условиями.
Данные собираются и обрабатываются нами и Google Analytics (more).
Вы можете изменить настройки cookies в своем браузере. Продолжая использовать сайт, вы соглашаетесь с этими условиями.
