The local interest of the quarter of the country, which I have the
honor to represent, will apologize for the trouble I may give you
on this occasion. My colleague has proposed an amendment to the
bill before you, instructing the secretary of the navy, to provide
supplies of cordage, sail-cloth, hemp, &c. and to give a preference
to those of American growth and manufacture. It has been moved by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lloyd) to strike out this part of
the amendment; and, in the course of the discussion which has arisen,
remarks have been made on the general policy of promoting manufactures.
The propriety of this policy is, perhaps, not very intimately connected
with the subject before us; but it is, nevertheless, within the
legitimate and admissible scope of debate. Under this impression
I offer my sentiments.
In inculcating the advantages of domestic manufactures, it never
entered the head, I presume, of any one, to change the habits of the
nation from an agricultural to a manufacturing community. No one, I am
persuaded, ever thought of converting the ploughshare and the sickle
into the spindle and the shuttle. And yet this is the delusive and
erroneous view too often taken of the subject. The opponents of the
manufacturing system transport themselves to the establishments of
Manchester and Birmingham, and, dwelling on the indigence, vice, and
wretchedness prevailing there, by pushing it to an _extreme_, argue
that its introduction into this country will necessarily be attended
by the same mischievous and dreadful consequences. But what is the
fact? That England is the manufacturer of a great part of the world;
and that, even there, the numbers thus employed bear an inconsiderable
proportion to the whole mass of population. Were we to become the
manufacturers of other nations, effects of the same kind might result.
But if we _limit_ our efforts, by our own wants, the evils apprehended
would be found to be chimerical. The invention and improvement of
machinery, for which the present age is so remarkable, dispensing in
a great degree with manual labor; and the employment of those persons,
who, if we were engaged in the pursuit of agriculture alone, would
be either unproductive, or exposed to indolence and immorality;
will enable us to supply our wants without withdrawing our attention
from agriculture――that first and greatest source of national wealth
and happiness. A judicious American farmer, in the household way,
manufactures whatever is requisite for his family. He squanders but
little in the gewgaws of Europe. He presents in epitome, what the
nation ought to be _in extenso_. Their manufactories should bear
the same proportion, and effect the same object in relation to the
whole community, which the part of his household employed in domestic
manufacturing, bears to the whole family. It is certainly desirable,
that the exports of the country should continue to be the surplus
production of tillage, and not become those of manufacturing
establishments. But it is important to diminish our imports; to furnish
ourselves with clothing, made by our own industry; and to cease to
be dependent, for the very coats we wear, upon a foreign and perhaps
inimical country. The nation that imports its clothing from abroad is
but little less dependent than if it imported its bread.
The fallacious course of reasoning urged against domestic manufactures,
namely, the distress and servitude produced by those of England, would
equally indicate the propriety of abandoning agriculture itself. Were
you to cast your eyes upon the miserable peasantry of Poland, and
revert to the days of feudal vassalage, you might thence draw numerous
arguments, of the kind now under consideration, against the pursuits
of the husbandman! What would become of commerce, the favorite theme
of some gentlemen, if assailed with this sort of weapon? The fraud,
perjury, cupidity, and corruption, with which it is unhappily too often
attended, would at once produce its overthrow. In short, sir, take the
black side of the picture, and every human occupation will be found
pregnant with fatal objections.
The opposition to manufacturing institutions recalls to my recollection
the case of a gentleman, of whom I have heard. He had been in the habit
of supplying his table from a neighboring cook, and confectioner’s
shop, and proposed to his wife a reform, in this particular. She
revolted at the idea. The sight of a scullion was dreadful, and her
delicate nerves could not bear the clattering of kitchen furniture. The
gentleman persisted in his design; his table was thenceforth cheaper
and better supplied, and his neighbor, the confectioner, lost one of
his best customers. In like manner dame Commerce will oppose domestic
manufactures. She is a flirting, flippant, noisy jade, and if we are
governed by her fantasies, we shall never put off the muslins of India
and the cloths of Europe. But I trust that the yeomanry of the country,
the true and genuine landlords of this tenement, called the United
States, disregarding her freaks, will persevere in reform, until
the whole national family is furnished by itself with the clothing
necessary for its own use.
It is a subject no less of curiosity than of interest, to trace the
prejudices in favor of foreign fabrics. In our colonial condition, we
were in a complete state of dependence on the parent country, as it
respected manufactures, as well as commerce. For many years after the
war, such was the partiality for her productions, in this country,
that a gentleman’s head could not withstand the influence of solar
heat, unless covered with a London hat; his feet could not bear the
pebbles, or frost, unless protected by London shoes; and the comfort
or ornament of his person was only consulted when his coat was cut out
by the shears of a tailor ‘just from London.’ At length, however, the
wonderful _discovery_ has been made, that it is not absolutely beyond
the reach of American skill and ingenuity, to provide these articles,
combining with equal elegance greater durability. And I entertain
no doubt, that, in a short time, the no less important fact will
be developed, that the domestic manufactories of the United States,
fostered by government, and aided by household exertions, are fully
competent to supply us with at least every necessary article of
clothing. I therefore, sir, _for one_ (to use the fashionable cant
of the day), am in favor of encouraging them, not to the extent to
which they are carried in England, but to such an extent as will
redeem us entirely from all dependence on foreign countries. There is a
pleasure――a pride (if I may be allowed the expression, and I pity those
who cannot feel the sentiment,)――in being clad in the productions of
our own families. Others may prefer the cloths of Leeds and of London,
but give me those of Humphreysville.
Aid may be given to native institutions in the form of bounties and
of protecting duties. But against bounties it is urged, that you tax
the _whole_ for the benefit of a _part_ only, of the community; and
in opposition to duties it is alleged, that you make the interest
of one part, the consumer, bend to the interest of another part, the
manufacturer. The sufficiency of the answer is not always admitted,
that the sacrifice is merely temporary, being ultimately compensated
by the greater abundance and superiority of the article produced by the
stimulus. But, of all practicable forms of encouragement, it might have
been expected, that the one under consideration would escape opposition,
if every thing proposed in congress were not doomed to experience
it. What is it? The bill contains two provisions――one prospective,
anticipating the appropriation for clothing for the army, and the
amendment proposes extending it to naval supplies, for the year
1811――and the other, directing a preference to be given to home
manufactures, and productions, whenever it can be done _without
material detriment to the public service_. The object of the first
is, to authorize contracts to be made beforehand, with manufacturers,
and by making advances to them, under proper security, to enable them
to supply the articles wanted, in sufficient quantity. When it is
recollected that they are frequently men of limited capitals, it will
be acknowledged that this kind of assistance, bestowed with prudence,
will be productive of the best results. It is, in fact, only pursuing a
principle long acted upon, of advancing to contractors with government,
on account of the magnitude of their engagements. The appropriation
contemplated to be made for the year 1811, may be restricted to such
a sum as, whether we have peace or war, we must necessarily expend.
The discretion is proposed to be vested in officers of high confidence,
who will be responsible for its abuse, and who are enjoined to see
that the public service receives no _material detriment_. It is stated,
that hemp is now very high, and that contracts, made under existing
circumstances, will be injurious to government. But the amendment
creates no obligation upon the secretary of the navy, to go into market
at this precise moment. In fact, by enlarging his sphere of action, it
admits of his taking advantage of a favorable fluctuation, and getting
a supply below the accustomed price, if such a fall should occur prior
to the usual annual appropriation.
I consider the amendment, under consideration, of the first importance,
in point of principle. It is evident, that whatever doubt may be
entertained, as to the general policy of the manufacturing system, none
can exist, as to the propriety of our being able to furnish ourselves
with articles of the first necessity, in time of war. Our maritime
operations ought not, in such a state, to depend upon the casualties
of foreign supply. It is not necessary that they should. With very
little encouragement from government, I believe we shall not want a
pound of Russia hemp. The increase of the article in Kentucky has been
rapidly great. Ten years ago there were but two rope manufactories in
the state. Now there are about twenty, and between ten and fifteen of
cotton bagging; and the erection of new ones keeps pace with the annual
augmentation of the quantity of hemp. Indeed, the western country,
alone, is not only adequate to the supply of whatever of this article
is requisite for our own consumption, but is capable of affording
a surplus for foreign markets. The amendment proposed possesses the
double recommendation of encouraging, at the same time, both the
manufacture and the growth of hemp. For by increasing the demand for
the wrought article, you also increase the demand for the raw material,
and consequently present new incentives to its cultivator.
The three great subjects that claim the attention of the national
legislature, are the interests of agriculture, commerce, and
manufactures. We have had before us, a proposition to afford a manly
protection to the rights of commerce, and how has it been treated?
Rejected! You have been solicited to promote agriculture, by increasing
the facilities of internal communication, through the means of canals
and roads, and what has been done? Postponed! We are now called upon
to give a trifling support to our domestic manufactures, and shall we
close the circle of congressional inefficiency, by adding this also to
the catalogue?