cs,
would enable him to charge purchasers an excess over the true value of
his stuffs, to the whole amount of the duty. By the protective policy,
the planters expected to have the cost of both provisions and clothing
increased, and their ability to monopolize the foreign markets
diminished in a corresponding degree. If they could establish free
trade, it would insure the American market to foreign manufacturers;
secure the foreign markets for their leading staple; repress home
manufactures; force a large number of the Northern men into
agriculture; multiply the growth, and diminish the price of provisions;
feed and clothe their slaves at lower rates; produce their cotton for a
third or fourth of former prices; rival all other countries in its
cultivation; monopolize the trade in the article throughout the whole of
Europe; and build up a commerce and a navy that would make us ruler of
the seas.
FOOTNOTE:
[31] This includes the period from 1806 to 1826, though the decline
began a few years before the latter date.
CHAPTER VIII.
Tariff controversy continued--Mr. Hayne--Mr.
Carter--Mr. Govan--Mr. Martindale--Mr.
Buchanan--Sugar Planters invoked to aid Free
Trade--The West also invoked--Its pecuniary
embarrassments for want of markets--Henry
Baldwin--Remarks on the views of the
parties--State of the world--Dread of the
Protective policy by the Planters--Their schemes
to avert its consequences, and promote Free Trade.
TO understand the sentiments of the South, on the Protective Policy, as
expressed by its statesmen, we must again quote from the Congressional
Debates of 1824:
Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, said: "But how, I would seriously ask, is
it possible for the home market to supply the place of the foreign
market, for our cotton? We supply Great Britain with the raw material,
out of which she furnishes the Continent of Europe, nay, the whole
world, with cotton goods. Now, suppose our manufactories could make
every yard of cloth we consume, that would furnish a home market for no
more than 20,000,000 lbs. out of the 180,000,000 lbs. of cotton now
shipped to Great Britain; leaving on our hands 160,000,000 lbs., equal
to two-thirds of our whole produce. . . . . Considering this scheme of
promoting certain employments, at the expense of others, as unequal,
oppressive, and unjust--viewing prohibition as the _means_
|