« ПретходнаНастави »
language can express is now the actual condition of the Southern States, in reference to the proposed analogy? The entire sum and aggregate result of all the commercial regulations and restrictions which constitute the colonial dependence of the Southern States, is, that these States-if we may use the misnomer of calling them so—are restrained and prohibited from carrying on commerce with any portion of the world, but the manufacturing States of this Union. What, then, have we gained by the change from our former to our present condition? We are precisely in the same state of dependence and vassal age—we defy all the inventions of our oppressors to make out a distinction—with the single exception, that we have changed our masters. It will be perceived, indeed, that in the two sentences expressive of our former and present condition, we have used precisely the same words, merely substituting "manufacturing States” for “Great Britain," and "Southern States" for “ British Colonies." Seeing, then, that we are reduced by the tariff system, to the same state of colonial vassalage, which was so absolutely intolerable to our ancestors, on the score of principle, let us inquire which of the two cases is, in point of fact, most burthensome and oppressive. And here we do not hesitate to say, that the present dependence of the Southern States is far more burthen-ome and oppressive, than was the colonial dependence of our ancestors. They were compelled, to be sure, to trade with Great Britain; but they there found an excellent market for all their agricultural productions, and obtained the manufactures they required, cheaper than they could have obtained them in any other country; whereas, we are compelled to trade with the manufacturing States, where we cannot obtain a market for one-fourth part of our agricultural productions, and are compelled to pay sixty per cent. higher for the manufactures we require, than the price for which we could procure them, if we were not deprived of our natural, constitutional and unalienable right of prosecuting a free trade with all the world, subject to no imposition, not honestly and in good faith intended for revenue, and to no restriction, not honestly and in good faith intended to vindicate and maintain some national right violated by a foreign power; and aiming not at the destruction but the preservation of the very branch of commerce to which the restriction may be applied. In a word, the British colonies were restricted to the market of the mother country, which was the best in the world; we are restricted to the market of the manufacturing States, which is, for the staple growing States, decidedly the worst. The course of our remarks forcibly suggests another historical analogy, calculated—if that be possible to
exhibit in a still stronger point of view, the state of political degradation to which the Southern States are reduced by the prohibitory system. The recent war with Great Britain, will be memorable in the history of the country, as the second war of Independence. The evident tendency of the British pretensions to re-colonize the United States, caused every enlightened patriot to see and to feel that such was the true character of the contest. Now, what were these pretensions of Great Britain ? In the very strongest point of view in which they could be placed, they amounted to no more than the assumption of a right, on the part of Great Britain, not to prohibit, but to shackle and incumber, during war, the commerce of the United States with the adverse belligerents. Suppose that she had set up the broad pretension, that we should trade exclusively with her, and should not trade with France either in peace or in war? There is not a patriot in the Union, who would not have seen his country one vast mausoleum of slaughtered freemen, before he would have tarnished the memory of his ancestors, by submitting to terms so ignominious and degrading. Every plain would have been a Marathon, and every strait a Thermopylæ; and Great Britain would never have succeeded in establishing her arrogant pretension, until none but slaves survived to acknowledge and submit to it. And yet, the Southern States, who so gloriously sustained a war waged against this pretension, are now actually reduced to a state of degradation and dependence, beyond all question worse than that which would have resulted from its establishment. If we had been actually conquered by the British arms, and the terms of our submission had been dictated at the head of victorious legions, nothing worse could have been imposed upon the whole Confederacy, by the right of conquest, and the power of the eonqueror, than the oppression and vassalage to which the Southern States are now subjected, by the legislation of Congress.
These views of the degradation of the Southern States receive a melancholy and impressive confirmation from the general aspect and condition of the country, viewed in contrast with its former prosperity. If the ancestors of this generation could rise from the grave, and revisit the scenes of their former usefulness, they would not hesitate to pronounce that the hand of oppression had fallen heavily upon the inheritance of their children. They would be utterly at a loss to account for the changes every where exhibited, upon any other supposition.
With natural advantages more bonutiful than were ever dispensed by a kind Providence to any other people upon the face
of the globe, they would behold, from the mountains to the seacoast, one unbroken scene of cheerless stagnation and premature decay. With one of the most valuable staples, that ever blessed the labours of the husbandman, and swelled the sails of a prosperous and enriching commerce, they would find that our estates are, with a steady and fatal proclivity, depreciating in value, our fields becoming waste, and our cities desolate. With habits of industry and economy, which have no example in our former history, they would find the heirs of the largest inheritances, generally involved in embarrassment, and many of them, irretrievably ruined. Wherever they might cast their eyes, they would find melancholy evidences, that the withering blasts of an unsparing despotism had passed over the land, blighting the choicest bounties of Providence, and leaving scarcely a solitary memorial of our former prosperity. They would look in vain for the animating scenes of successful industry, for the wealth and comforts of a thriving population, and for those mansions of hospitality, which were once the seats of elegance, and the abodes of cheerfulness.
The picture which we have here faintly sketched of the ruinous effects of the tariff system of protection and prohibition, will appear in much more striking colours when we view it contrasted with the state of things which formerly existed under a system of free trade, and which would certainly and speedily return, if the shackles of unjust and unconstitutional restriction were thrown off our commerce. Every man whose memory extends back as far as twenty-five years, will recollect the extraordinary prosperity enjoyed by the Southern States, during the early part of Mr. Jefferson's administration; and we confidently express the opinion, that if the impost duties were reduced to a scale adapted to the purposes of revenue merely, the Southern States, and particularly the cotton growing States, would, in twelve months, be restored to a state of prosperity equal to that which they enjoyed at the period to which we have just made reference. To be more specific, we believe that if the duties on foreign merchandize were reduced to an average of fifteen per cent. the cotton growing States would be at once raised from their present deplorable condition, to a state of prosperity fully equal to what they have enjoyed at at any former period. A permanent rise in the price of cotton, from ten to sixteen cents per pound, would not more than give the index and the measure of our increased, or more properly speaking, our renovated prosperity. The aggregate demand for our raw cotton would be increased at a moderate calculation, three hundred thousand bales; its price would experience a corresponding increase, and
the price of every article we take in exchange for it, would be be decreased at least in an equal proportion. Can any thing, then, so forcibly illustrate the system which is now pressing the Southern States to the dust in wretchedness and poverty, as the obvious fact that the mere restoration of our natural and constitutional right of free trade with all the world, would produce so great a revolution in our condition. This revolution is powerfully recommended by the consideration, that while it would relieve the Southern States from at least fifteen millions of taxation, now annually paid as a tribute to the tariff States, it would not, in any view of the subject, interfere with the rights of the tariff States.
We know it has been said—with that characteristic absurdity which a dominant majority, conscious of their numerical strength, always feel privileged to exhibit—that in maintaining their right to free trade, the Southern States are attempting to violate the rights of the tariff States, by preventing them from making their own manufactures, and compelling them to purchase the manufactures of foreign countries. An assertion, more unfounded, would scarcely have been hazarded by the most reckless religious impostor, to the blind believers in his godhead. In what possible manner or degree can the exercise, by the Southern States, of their right to a free and untrammelled trade, either prevent the tariff States from making their own manufactures, or compel them to purchase the manufactures of foreign nations? Does not a free trade give them the same power to refuse purchasing foreign manufactures, which it gives the Southern States to purchase them!
But we will even go further. We will maintain and will demonstrate, that the establishment of the most perfect freedom of trade, by the laws of the Federal Government, will not prevent the tariff States from giving any degree of protection and encouragement to their manufactures, which they may deem expedient.
No one, it is presumed, will question the constitutional competency of the State Legislatures, to grant pecuniary bounties for the protection of domestic manufactures. In this, the power of the States is not only unquestioned, but unlimited. It only remains, then, for us to shew, that the protection and encouragement of domestic manufactures, by pecuniary bounties, is as efficacious, direct and unobjectionable as that, by impost duties and prohibitions. We shall produce the very highest authority to prove that it is more so.
Alexander Hamilton, in his celebrated report on domestic manufactures, makes the following suggestions, and uses the following arguments :
Pecuniary Bounties. This has been found one of the most efficacious means of encouraging manufactures, and it is in some views the best. Its advantages are these
“1. It is a species of encouragement more positive and direct than any other, and for that very reason, has a more immediate tendency to stimulate and uphold new enterprizes.
“2. It avoids the inconvenience of a temporary augmentation of price, which is incident to some other modes, or it produces it in a less degree.
3. Bounties have not, like high protecting duties, a tendency to produce scarcity.
“4. Bounties are sometimes not only the best, but the only proper expedient for uniting the encouragement of a new object of agriculture with a new object of manufacture.
“ It cannot escape notice, that a duty upon the importation of an article, can no otherwise aid the domestic production of it, than by giving the latter greater advantages in the home market. It can have no influence upon the advantageous sale of the article produced, in foreign markets; no tendency, therefore, to promote its exportation.
“As often as a duty upon a foreign article makes an addition to its price, it causes an extra expense to the community for the benefit of the domestic manufacturer. A bounty does no more.
Protecting Duties.—Duties of this nature evidently amount to a virtual bounty upon the domestic fabrics, since by enhancing the charges on foreign articles, they enable the national manufacturers to undersell all their competitors.”
These quotations from the writings of one whom the advocates of the prohibitory system claim as its founder, conclusively demonstrate that a direct "pecuniary bounty” is preferable to an indirect and “virtual bounty” given in the form of a "protecting duty” for the encouragement of domestie manufactures. We would add to the reasons given by Mr. Hamilton for this preference, one or two others. A pecuniary bounty is free from all disguise or uncertainty. The community know precisely the extent and duration of the burthen it imposes upon them. It also has this striking and conclusive advantage over a high protecting duty-it cannot be evaded by smuggling.
What, therefore, is there to prevent the tariff states from giving the most ample protection to their own domestic manufactures ? Why, for example, does not Massachusetts give protection to her own manufactures, by a system of pecuniary bounties, and with what a graceless front does the Legislature of that State memorialize Congress to give a protection to the