+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Other (/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Webster's Second Reply to Hayne (/thread-4623.html)
Webster's Second Reply to Hayne - Amy L. - 02-23-2022 02:14 PM
Dear Symposium,
One thing I've seen referenced again and again, is 'Webster's Second Reply to Hayne,' so I finally tracked it down.
Might someone help me interpret the quote below, as it relates to Kentucky?
"I said, only, that it was highly wise and useful, in legislating for the Northwestern country while it was yet a wilderness, to prohibit the introduction of slaves; and I added, that I presumed there was no reflecting and intelligent person, in the neighboring State of Kentucky who would doubt that, if the same prohibition had been extended, at the same early period, over that commonwealth, her strength and population would, at this day, have been far greater than they are. If these opinions be thought doubtful, they are nevertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. They attack nobody and menace nobody."
Webster was saying:
1. KY lost population and tax-base because the slave-industry was difficult to compete with? (Perhaps both when trading in the local market, and purchasing arable land?),
2. With lost population KY had less Congressional representation. (but they had that lucky 3/5 clause)
Or was he inferring something else?
Thanks!
RE: Webster's Second Reply to Hayne - Gene C - 02-23-2022 04:21 PM
In my opinion, I think you reached a reasonable interpretation
RE: Webster's Second Reply to Hayne - Rob Wick - 02-23-2022 04:56 PM
I personally think what Webster is saying is that if one looks at the states that made up the Northwest territory, the fact that they were settled without the introduction of slavery gave them an advantage both economically and, more important, morally. Hayne seemingly took that as an attack on the institution of slavery, which I think Webster really was trying to do, only in such a way as to make it appear that he wasn't. I think to a point Webster was being somewhat disingenuous. In other words, I don't think Webster was looking at it from a purely economic point of view, although there were certainly those who left Kentucky, like Thomas Lincoln did, due in part to slavery. I think he was saying that while economic integrity would flourish under a free society, the lack of slavery as an institution provided a moral benefit equal to or greater than the economic one.
I base none of this on any documentation or anything other than my own opinion. Given that it's free, take it for what it's worth.
Best
Rob
RE: Webster's Second Reply to Hayne - GustD45 - 02-24-2022 12:39 AM
I must agree with the two esteemed gentlemen on this thread