CHAPTER XXXIV.

REVISION OF THE TARIFF.

The tariff of 1828 is an era in our legislation, being the event

from which the doctrine of "nullification" takes its origin, and

from which a serious division dates between the North and the

South. It was the work of politicians and manufacturers; and was

commenced for the benefit of the woollen interest, and upon a bill

chiefly designed to favor that branch of manufacturing industry.

But, like all other bills of the kind, it required help from other

interests to get itself along; and that help was only to be obtained

by admitting other interests into the benefits of the bill. And

so, what began as a special benefit, intended for the advantage of

a particular interest, became general, and ended with including

all manufacturing interests--or at least as many as were necessary

to make up the strength necessary to carry it. The productions of

different States, chiefly in the West, were favored by additional

duties on their rival imports; as lead in Missouri and Illinois,

and hemp of Kentucky; and thus, though opposed to the object of the

bill, many members were necessitated to vote for it. Mr. Rowan, of

Kentucky, well exposed the condition of others in this respect, in

showing his own in some remarks which he made, and in which he said:

"He was not opposed to the tariff as a system of revenue,

honestly devoted to the objects and purposes of revenue--on

the contrary, he was friendly to a tariff of that character;

but when perverted by the ambition of political aspirants, and

the secret influence of inordinate cupidity, to purposes of

individual, and sectional ascendency, he could not be seduced by

the captivation of names, or terms, however attractive, to lend

it his individual support.

"It is in vain, Mr. President, said he, that it is called

the American System--names do not alter things. There is but

one American System, and that is delineated in the State and

Federal constitutions. It is the system of equal rights and

privileges secured by the representative principle--a system,

which, instead of subjecting the proceeds of the labor of some

to taxation, in the view to enrich others, secures to all the

proceeds of their labor--exempts all from taxation, except

for the support of the protecting power of the government. As

a tax necessary to the support of the government, he would

support it--call it by what name you please;--as a tax for any

other purpose, and especially for the purposes to which he had

alluded--it had his individual reprobation, under whatever name

it might assume.

"It might, he observed, be inferred from what he had said, that

he would vote against the bill. He did not wish any doubts to

be entertained as to the vote he should give upon this measure,

or the reasons which would influence him to give it. He was not

at liberty to substitute his individual opinion for that of his

State. He was one of the organs here, of a State, that had,

by the tariff of 1824, been chained to the car of the Eastern

manufacturers--a State that had been from that time, and was

now groaning under the pressure of that unequal and unjust

measure--a measure from the pressure of which, owing to the

prevailing illusion throughout the United States, she saw no

hope of escape, by a speedy return to correct principles;--and

seeing no hope of escaping from the ills of the system, she is

constrained, on principles of self-defence, to avail herself of

the mitigation which this bill presents, in the duties which

it imposes upon foreign hemp, spirits, iron, and molasses. The

hemp, iron, and distilled spirits of the West, will, like the

woollens of the Eastern States, be encouraged to the extent

of the tax indirectly imposed by this bill, upon those who

shall buy and consume them. Those who may need, and buy those

articles, must pay to the grower, or manufacturer of them, an

increased price to the amount of the duties imposed upon the

like articles of foreign growth or fabric. To this tax upon the

labor of the consumer, his individual opinion was opposed. But,

as the organ of the State of Kentucky, he felt himself bound to

surrender his individual opinion, and express the opinion of his

State."

Thus, this tariff bill, like every one admitting a variety of

items, contains a vicious principle, by which a majority may be

made up to pass a measure which they do not approve. But besides

variety of agricultural and manufacturing items collected into this

bill, there was another of very different import admitted into

it, namely, that of party politics. A presidential election was

approaching: General Jackson and Mr. Adams were the candidates--the

latter in favor of the "American System"--of which Mr. Clay (his

Secretary of State) was the champion, and indissolubly connected

with him in the public mind in the issue of the election. This

tariff was made an administration measure, and became an issue in

the canvass; and to this Mr. Rowan significantly alluded when he

spoke of a tariff as being "perverted by the ambition of political

aspirants." It was in vain that the manufacturers were warned

not to mix their interests with the doubtful game of politics.

They yielded to the temptation--yielded as a class, though with

individual exceptions--for the sake of the temporary benefit,

without seeming to realize the danger of connecting their interests

with the fortunes of a political party. This tariff of '28,

besides being remarkable for giving birth to "nullification," and

heart-burning between the North and the South, was also remarkable

for a change of policy in the New England States, in relation to

the protective system. Being strongly commercial, these States had

hitherto favored free trade; and Mr. Webster was the champion of

that trade up to 1824. At this session a majority of those States,

and especially those which classed politically with Mr. Adams and

Mr. Clay, changed their policy: and Webster became a champion of

the protective system. The cause of this change, as then alleged,

was the fact that the protective system had become the established

policy of the government, and that these States had adapted their

industry to it; though it was insisted, on the other hand, that

political calculation had more to do with the change than federal

legislation: and, in fact, the question of this protection was one

of those which lay at the foundation of parties, and was advocated

by General Hamilton in one of his celebrated reports of fifty years

ago. But on this point it is right that New England should speak for

herself, which she did at the time of the discussion of the tariff

in '28; and through the member, now a senator (Mr. Webster), who

typified in his own person the change which his section of the Union

had undergone. He said:

"New England, sir, has not been a leader in this policy. On the

contrary, she held back, herself, and tried to hold others back

from it, from the adoption of the constitution to 1824. Up to

1824, she was accused of sinister and selfish designs, because

she discountenanced the progress of this policy. It was laid

to her charge, then, that having established her manufactures

herself, she wished that others should not have the power of

rivalling her; and, for that reason, opposed all legislative

encouragement. Under this angry denunciation against her,

the act of 1824 passed. Now the imputation is precisely of

an opposite character. The present measure is pronounced to

be exclusively for the benefit of New England; to be brought

forward by her agency, and designed to gratify the cupidity of

her wealthy establishments.

"Both charges, sir, are equally without the slightest

foundation. The opinion of New England, up to 1824, was founded

in the conviction, that, on the whole, it was wisest and best,

both for herself and others, that manufacturers should make

haste slowly. She felt a reluctance to trust great interests

on the foundation of government patronage; for who could tell

how long such patronage would last, or with what steadiness,

skill, or perseverance, it would continue to be granted? It is

now nearly fifteen years, since, among the first things which

I ever ventured to say here, was the expression of a serious

doubt, whether this government was fitted by its construction,

to administer aid and protection to particular pursuits;

whether, having called such pursuits into being by indications

of its favor, it would not, afterwards, desert them, when

troubles come upon them; and leave them to their fate. Whether

this prediction, the result, certainly, of chance, and not of

sagacity, will so soon be fulfilled, remains to be seen.

"At the same time it is true, that from the very first

commencement of the government, those who have administered

its concerns have held a tone of encouragement and invitation

towards those who should embark in manufactures. All the

Presidents, I believe, without exception, have concurred in

this general sentiment; and the very first act of Congress,

laying duties of impost, adopted the then unusual expedient

of a preamble, apparently for little other purpose than that

of declaring, that the duties, which it imposed, were imposed

for the encouragement and protection of manufactures. When,

at the commencement of the late war, duties were doubled, we

were told that we should find a mitigation of the weight of

taxation in the new aid and succor which would be thus afforded

to our own manufacturing labor. Like arguments were urged, and

prevailed, but not by the aid of New England votes, when the

tariff was afterwards arranged at the close of the war, in 1816.

Finally, after a whole winter's deliberation, the act of 1824

received the sanction of both Houses of Congress, and settled

the policy of the country. What, then, was New England to do?

She was fitted for manufacturing operations, by the amount and

character of her population, by her capital, by the vigor and

energy of her free labor, by the skill, economy, enterprise,

and perseverance of her people. I repeat, what was she, under

these circumstances, to do? A great and prosperous rival in

her near neighborhood, threatening to draw from her a part,

perhaps a great part, of her foreign commerce; was she to use,

or to neglect, those other means of seeking her own prosperity

which belonged to her character and her condition? Was she to

hold out, forever, against the course of the government, and

see herself losing, on one side, and yet making no efforts to

sustain herself on the other? No, sir. Nothing was left to New

England, after the act of 1824, but to conform herself to the

will of others. Nothing was left to her, but to consider that

the government had fixed and determined its own policy; and that

policy was protection."

The question of a protective tariff had now not only become

political, but sectional. In the early years of the federal

government it was not so. The tariff bills, as the first and the

second, that were passed, declared in their preambles that they

were for the encouragement of manufactures, as well as for raising

revenue; but then the duties imposed were all moderate--such as a

revenue system really required; and there were no "_minimums_" to

make a false basis for the calculation of duties, by enacting that

all which cost less than a certain amount should be counted to have

cost that amount; and be rated at the custom-house accordingly. In

this early period the Southern States were as ready as any part

of the Union in extending the protection to home industry which

resulted from the imposition of revenue duties on rival imported

articles, and on articles necessary to ourselves in time of war;

and some of her statesmen were amongst the foremost members of

Congress in promoting that policy. As late as 1816, some of

her statesmen were still in favor of protection, not merely as

an incident to revenue, but as a substantive object: and among

these was Mr. Calhoun, of South Carolina--who even advocated the

minimum provision--then for the first time introduced into a

tariff bill, and upon his motion--and applied to the cotton goods

imported. After that year (1816) the tariff bills took a sectional

aspect--the Southern States, with the exception of Louisiana (led

by her sugar-planting interest), against them: the New England

States also against them: the Middle and Western States for them.

After 1824 the New England States (always meaning the greatest

portion when a section is spoken of) classed with the protective

States--leaving the South alone, as a section, against that policy.

My personal position was that of a great many others in the three

protective sections--opposed to the policy, but going with it, on

account of the interest of the State in the protection of some

of its productions. I moved an additional duty upon lead, equal

to one hundred per centum; and it was carried. I moved a duty

upon indigo, a former staple of the South, but now declined to a

slight production; and I proposed a rate of duty in harmony with

the protective features of the bill. No southern member would move

that duty, because he opposed the principle: I moved it, that the

"American System," as it was called, should work alike in all parts

of our America. I supported the motion with some reasons, and some

views of the former cultivation of that plant in the Southern

States, and its present decline, thus:

"Mr. Benton then proposed an amendment, to impose a duty of 25

cents per pound on imported indigo, with a progressive increase

at the rate of 25 cents per pound per annum, until the whole

duty amounted to $1 per pound. He stated his object to be

two-fold in proposing this duty, first, to place the American

System beyond the reach of its enemies, by procuring a home

supply of an article indispensable to its existence; and next,

to benefit the South by reviving the cultivation of one of its

ancient and valuable staples.

"Indigo was first planted in the Carolinas and Georgia about the

year 1740, and succeeded so well as to command the attention of

the British manufacturers and the British parliament. An act

was passed for the encouragement of its production in these

colonies, in the reign of George the Second; the preamble to

which Mr. B. read, and recommended to the consideration of

the Senate. It recited that a regular, ample, and certain

supply of indigo was indispensable to the success of British

manufacturers; that these manufacturers were then dependent

upon foreigners for a supply of this article; and that it was

the dictate of a wise policy to encourage the production of

it at home. The act then went on to direct that a premium of

sixpence sterling should be paid out of the British treasury

for every pound of indigo imported into Great Britain, from the

Carolinas and Georgia. Under the fostering influence of this

bounty, said Mr. B., the cultivation of indigo became great and

extensive. In six years after the passage of the act, the export

was 217,000 lbs. and at the breaking out of the Revolution it

amounted to 1,100,000 lbs. The Southern colonies became rich

upon it; for the cultivation of cotton was then unknown; rice

and indigo were the staples of the South. After the Revolution,

and especially after the great territorial acquisitions which

the British made in India, the cultivation of American indigo

declined. The premium was no longer paid; and the British

government, actuated by the same wise policy which made them

look for a home supply of this article from the Carolinas,

when they were a part of the British possessions, now looked

to India for the same reason. The export of American indigo

rapidly declined. In 1800 it had fallen to 400,000 lbs.; in 1814

to 40,000 lbs,; and in the last few years to 6 or 8,000 lbs.

In the mean time our manufactories were growing up; and having

no supply of indigo at home, they had to import from abroad.

In 1826 this importation amounted to 1,150,000 lbs., costing a

fraction less than two millions of dollars, and had to be paid

for almost entirely in ready money, as it was chiefly obtained

from places where American produce was in no demand. Upon this

state of facts, Mr. B. conceived it to be the part of a wise and

prudent policy to follow the example of the British parliament

in the reign of George II. and provide a home supply of this

indispensable article. Our manufacturers now paid a high price

for fine indigo, no less than $2 50 per pound, as testified by

one of themselves before the Committee on Manufactures raised

in the House of Representatives. The duty which he proposed was

only 40 per cent. upon that value, and would not even reach that

rate for four years. It was less than one half the duty which

the same bill proposed to lay instanter upon the very cloth

which this indigo was intended to dye. In the end it would make

all indigo come cheaper to the manufacturer, as the home supply

would soon be equal, if not superior to the demand; and in the

mean time, it could not be considered a tax on the manufacturer,

as he would levy the advance which he had to pay, with a good

interest, upon the wearer of the cloth.

"Mr. B. then went into an exposition of the reasons for

encouraging the home production of indigo, and showed that the

life of the American System depended upon it. Neither cotton nor

woollen manufactures could be carried on without indigo. The

consumption of that article was prodigious. Even now, in the

infant state of our manufactories, the importation was worth two

millions of dollars: and must soon be worth double or treble

that sum. For this great supply of an indispensable article,

we were chiefly indebted to the jealous rival, and vigilant

enemy, of these very manufactures, to Great Britain herself. Of

the 1,150,000 lbs. of indigo imported, we bring 620,000 lbs.

from the British East Indies; which one word from the British

government would stop for ever; we bring the further quantity

of 120,000 lbs. from Manilla, a Spanish possession, which

British influence and diplomacy could immediately stop: and the

remainder came from different parts of South America, and might

be taken from us by the arts of diplomacy, or by a monopoly of

the whole on the part of our rival. A stoppage of a supply of

indigo for one year, would prostrate all our manufactories,

and give them a blow from which they would not recover in many

years. Great Britain could effect this stoppage to the amount of

three fourths of the whole quantity by speaking a single word,

and of the remainder by a slight exertion of policy, or the

expenditure of a sum sufficient to monopolize for one year, the

purchase of what South America sent into the market.

"Mr. B. said he expected a unanimous vote in favor of his

amendment. The North should vote for it to secure the life of

the American System; to give a proof of their regard for the

South; to show that the country south of the Potomac is included

in the bill for some other purpose besides that of oppression.

The South itself, although opposed to the further increase of

duties, should vote for this duty; that the bill, if it passes,

may contain one provision favorable to its interests. The West

should vote for it through gratitude for fifty years of guardian

protection, generous defence, and kind assistance, which the

South had given it under all its trials; and for the purpose of

enlarging the market, increasing the demand in the South and

its ability to purchase the horses, mules, and provisions which

the West can sell nowhere else. For himself he had personal

reasons for wishing to do this little justice to the South. He

was a native of one of these States (N. Carolina)--the bones of

his father and his grandfathers rested there. Her Senators and

Representatives were his early and his hereditary friends. The

venerable Senator before him (Mr. Macon) had been the friend

of him and his, through four generations in a straight line;

the other Senator (Mr. Branch) was his schoolfellow: the other

branch of the legislature, the House of Representatives, also

showed him in the North Carolina delegation, the friends of

him and his through successive generations. Nor was this all.

He felt for the sad changes which had taken place in the South

in the last fifty years. Before the Revolution it was the seat

of wealth as well as of hospitality. Money, and all that it

commanded, abounded there. But how now? All this is reversed.

"Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in the regions

north of the Potomac, and this in the midst of the fact that

the South, in four staples alone, in cotton, tobacco, rice and

indigo (while indigo was one of its staples), had exported

produce since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred

million of dollars, and the North had exported comparatively

nothing. This sum was prodigious; it was nearly equal to half

the coinage of the mint of Mexico since the conquest by Cortez.

It was twice or thrice the amount of the product of the three

thousand gold and silver mines of Mexico, for the same period

of fifty years. Such an export would indicate unparalleled

wealth; but what was the fact? In place of wealth, a universal

pressure for money was felt; not enough for current expenses;

the price of all property down; the country drooping and

languishing; towns and cities decaying; and the frugal habits of

the people pushed to the verge of universal self-denial, for the

preservation of their family estates. Such a result is a strange

and wonderful phenomenon. It calls upon statesmen to inquire

into the cause; and if they inquire upon the theatre of this

strange metamorphosis, they will receive one universal answer

from all ranks and all ages, that it is federal legislation

which has worked this ruin. Under this legislation the exports

of the South have been made the basis of the federal revenue.

The twenty odd millions annually levied upon imported goods,

are deducted out of the price of their cotton, rice and tobacco,

either in the diminished price which they receive for these

staples in foreign ports, or in the increased price which they

pay for the articles they have to consume at home. Virginia, the

two Carolinas and Georgia, may be said to defray three fourths

of the annual expense of supporting the federal government;

and of this great sum annually furnished by them, nothing, or

next to nothing, is returned to them in the shape of government

expenditure. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction; it

flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted and perennial

stream; it takes the course of trade and of exchange; and this

is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up

in the North. Federal legislation does all this; it does it by

the simple process of eternally taking away from the South, and

returning nothing to it. If it returned to the South the whole,

or even a good part of what it exacted, the four States south of

the Potomac might stand the action of this system, as the earth

is enabled to stand the exhausting influence of the sun's daily

heat by the refreshing dews which are returned to it at night;

but as the earth is dried up, and all vegetation destroyed in

regions where the heat is great, and no dews returned, so must

the South be exhausted of its money and its property by a course

of legislation which is for ever taking from it, and never

returning any thing to it.

"Every new tariff increases the force of this action. No tariff

has ever yet included Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia,

within its provisions, except to increase the burdens imposed

upon them. This one alone, presents the opportunity to form an

exception, by reviving and restoring the cultivation of one of

its ancient staples,--one of the sources of its wealth before

the Revolution. The tariff of 1828 owes this reparation to the

South, because the tariff of 1816 contributed to destroy the

cultivation of indigo; sunk the duty on the foreign article,

from twenty-five to fifteen cents per pound. These are the

reasons for imposing the duty on indigo, now proposed. What

objections can possibly be raised to it? Not to the quality;

for it is the same which laid the foundation of the British

manufactures, and sustained their reputation for more than

half a century; not to the quantity; for the two Carolinas

and Georgia alone raised as much fifty years ago as we now

import, and we have now the States of Louisiana, Alabama, and

Mississippi, and the Territories of Florida and Arkansas, to

add to the countries which produce it; not to the amount of

the duty; for its maximum will be but forty per cent., only

one half of the duty laid by this bill on the cloth it is to

dye; and that maximum, not immediate, but attained by slow

degrees at the end of four years, in order to give time for the

domestic article to supply the place of the imported. And after

all, it is not a duty on the manufacturer, but on the wearer

of the goods; from whom he levies, with a good interest on

the price of the cloths, all that he expends in the purchase

of materials. For once, said Mr. B., I expect a unanimous vote

on a clause in the tariff. This indigo clause must have the

singular and unprecedented honor of an unanimous voice in its

favor. The South must vote for it, to revive the cultivation

of one of its most ancient and valuable staples; the West must

vote for it through gratitude for past favors--through gratitude

for the vote on hemp this night[2]--and to save, enlarge, and

increase the market for its own productions; the North must

vote for it to show their disinterestedness; to give one proof

of just feeling towards the South; and, above all, to save

their favorite American System from the deadly blow which Great

Britain can at any moment give it by stopping or interrupting

the supplies of foreign indigo; and the whole Union, the entire

legislative body, must vote for it, and vote for it with joy and

enthusiasm, because it is impossible that Americans can deny

to sister States of the Confederacy what a British King and a

British Parliament granted to these same States when they were

colonies and dependencies of the British crown."

[2] "The vote on hemp this night." In rejecting Mr. Webster's

motion to strike out the duty on hemp, and a vote in which the

South went unanimously with the West.--_Note by Mr. B._

Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, seconded my motion in a speech of

which this is an extract:

"Mr. Hayne said he was opposed to this bill in its principles

as well as in its details. It could assume no shape which would

make it acceptable to him, or which could prevent it from

operating most oppressively and unjustly on his constituents.

With these views, he had determined to make no motion to amend

the bill in any respect whatever; but when such motions were

made by others, and he was compelled to vote on them, he knew

no better rule than to endeavor to make the bill consistent

with itself. On this principle he had acted in all the votes he

had given on this bill. He had endeavored to carry out to its

legitimate consequences what gentlemen are pleased to miscall

the 'American System.' With a fixed resolution to vote against

the bill, he still considered himself at liberty to assist in so

arranging the details as to extend to every great interest, and

to all portions of the country, as far as may be practicable,

equal protection, and to distribute the burdens of the system

equally, in order that its benefits as well as its evils may

be fully tested. On this principle, he should vote for the

amendment of the gentleman from Missouri, because it was in

strict conformity with all the principles of the bill. As a

southern man, he would ask no boon for the South--he should

propose nothing; but he must say that the protection of indigo

rested on the same principles as every other article proposed

to be protected by this bill, and he did not see how gentlemen

could, consistently with their maxims, vote against it. What

was the principle on which this bill was professedly founded?

If there was any principle at all in the bill, it was that,

whenever the country had the capacity to produce an article

with which any imported article could enter into competition,

the domestic product was to be protected by a duty. Now, had

the Southern States the capacity to produce indigo? The soil

and climate of those States were well suited to the culture of

the article. At the commencement of the Revolution our exports

of the article amounted to no less than 1,100,000 lbs. The

whole quantity now imported into the United States is only

1,150,000 lbs.; so that the capacity of the country to produce

a sufficient quantity of indigo to supply the wants of the

manufacturers is unquestionable. It is true that the quantity

now produced in the country is not great.

"In 1818 only 700 lbs. of domestic indigo were exported.

"In 1825 9,955 do.

"In 1826 5,289 do.

"This proves that the attention of the country is now directed

to the subject. The senator from Indiana, in some remarks which

he made on this subject yesterday, stated that, according to the

principles of the American System (so called), protection was

not extended to any article which the country was not in the

habit of exporting. This is entirely a mistake. Of the articles

protected by the tariff of 1824, as well as those included in

this bill, very few are exported at all. Among these are iron,

woollens, hemp, flax, and several others. If indigo is to be

protected at all, the duties proposed must surely be considered

extremely reasonable, the maximum proposed being much below that

imposed by this bill on wool, woollens, and other articles. The

duty on indigo till 1816, was 25 cents per pound. It was then

(in favor of the manufacturers) reduced to 15 cents. The first

increase of duty proposed here, is only to put back the old

duty of 25 cents per pound, equal to an ad valorem duty of from

10 to 15 per cent.--and the maximum is only from 40 to 58 per

cent. ad valorem, and that will not accrue for several years to

come. With this statement of facts, Mr. H. said he would leave

the question in the hands of those gentlemen who were engaged in

giving this bill the form in which it is to be submitted to the

final decision of the Senate."

The proposition for this duty on imported indigo did not prevail.

In lieu of the amount proposed, and which was less than any

protective duty in the bill, the friends of the "American System"

(constituting a majority of the Senate) substituted a nominal duty

of five cents on the pound--to be increased five cents annually for

ten years--and to remain at fifty. This was only about twenty per

centum on the cost of the article, and that only to be attained

after a progression of ten years; while all other duties in the

bill were from four to ten times that amount--and to take effect

immediately. A duty so contemptible, so out of proportion to the

other provisions of the bill, and doled out in such miserable drops,

was a mockery and insult; and so viewed by the southern members. It

increased the odiousness of the bill, by showing that the southern

section of the Union was only included in the "American System" for

its burdens, and not for its benefits. Mr. McDuffie, in the House

of Representatives, inveighed bitterly against it, and spoke the

general feeling of the Southern States when he said:

"Sir, if the union of these States shall ever be severed,

and their liberties subverted, the historian who records

these disasters will have to ascribe them to measures of this

description. I do sincerely believe that neither this government

nor any free government, can exist for a quarter of a century,

under such a system of legislation. Its inevitable tendency

is to corrupt, not only the public functionaries, but all

those portions of the Union and classes of society who have

an interest, real or imaginary, in the bounties it provides,

by taxing other sections and other classes. What, sir, is the

essential characteristic of a freeman? It is that independence

which results from an habitual reliance upon his own resources

and his own labor for his support. He is not in fact a freeman,

who habitually looks to the government for pecuniary bounties.

And I confess that nothing in the conduct of those who are

the prominent advocates of this system, has excited more

apprehension and alarm in my mind, than the constant efforts

made by all of them, from the Secretary of the Treasury down

to the humblest coadjutor, to impress upon the public mind,

the idea that national prosperity and individual wealth are

to be derived, not from individual industry and economy, but

from government bounties. An idea more fatal to liberty could

not be inculcated. I said, on another occasion, that the days

of Roman liberty were numbered when the people consented to

receive bread from the public granaries. From that moment it

was not the patriot who had shown the greatest capacity and

made the greatest sacrifices to serve the republic, but the

demagogue who would promise to distribute most profusely the

spoils of the plundered provinces, that was elevated to office

by a degenerate and mercenary populace. Every thing became

venal, even in the country of Fabricius, until finally the

empire itself was sold at public auction! And what, sir, is

the nature and tendency of the system we are discussing? It

bears an analogy, but too lamentably striking, to that which

corrupted the republican purity of the Roman people. God forbid

that it should consummate its triumph over the public liberty,

by a similar catastrophe, though even that is an event by no

means improbable, if we continue to legislate periodically in

this way, and to connect the election of our Chief Magistrate

with the question of dividing out the spoils of certain

States--degraded into Roman provinces--among the influential

capitalists of the other States of this Union! Sir, when I

consider that, by a single act like the present, from five to

ten millions of dollars may be transferred annually from one

part of the community to another; when I consider the disguise

of disinterested patriotism under which the basest and most

profligate ambition may perpetrate such an act of injustice

and political prostitution, I cannot hesitate, for a moment,

to pronounce this very system of indirect bounties, the most

stupendous instrument of corruption ever placed in the hands

of public functionaries. It brings ambition and avarice and

wealth into a combination, which it is fearful to contemplate,

because it is almost impossible to resist. Do we not perceive,

at this very moment, the extraordinary and melancholy spectacle

of less than one hundred thousand capitalists, by means of this

unhallowed combination, exercising an absolute and despotic

control over the opinions of eight millions of free citizens,

and the fortunes and destinies of ten millions? Sir, I will

not anticipate or forebode evil. I will not permit myself to

believe that the Presidency of the United States will ever be

bought and sold, by this system of bounties and prohibitions.

But I must say that there are certain quarters of this Union in

which, if a candidate for the Presidency were to come forward

with the Harrisburg tariff in his hand, nothing could resist his

pretensions, if his adversary were opposed to this unjust system

of oppression. Yes, sir, that bill would be a talisman which

would give a charmed existence to the candidate who would pledge

himself to support it. And although he were covered with all the

"multiplying villanies of nature," the most immaculate patriot

and profound statesman in the nation could hold no competition

with him, if he should refuse to grant this new species of

imperial donative."

Allusions were constantly made to the combination of manufacturing

capitalists and politicians in pressing this bill. There was

evidently foundation for the imputation. The scheme of it had

been conceived in a convention of manufacturers in the State of

Pennsylvania, and had been taken up by politicians, and was pushed

as a party measure, and with the visible purpose of influencing the

presidential election. In fact these tariff bills, each exceeding

the other in its degree of protection, had become a regular

appendage of our presidential elections--coming round in every cycle

of four years, with that returning event. The year 1816 was the

starting point: 1820, and 1824, and now 1828, having successively

renewed the measure, with successive augmentations of duties. The

South believed itself impoverished to enrich the North by this

system; and certainly a singular and unexpected result had been seen

in these two sections. In the colonial state, the Southern were

the rich part of the colonies, and expected to do well in a state

of independence. They had the exports, and felt secure of their

prosperity: not so of the North, whose agricultural resources were

few, and who expected privations from the loss of British favor.

But in the first half century after Independence this expectation

was reversed. The wealth of the North was enormously aggrandized:

that of the South had declined. Northern towns had become great

cities: Southern cities had decayed, or become stationary; and

Charleston, the principal port of the South, was less considerable

than before the Revolution. The North became a money-lender to the

South, and southern citizens made pilgrimages to northern cities,

to raise money upon the hypothecation of their patrimonial estates.

And this in the face of a southern export since the Revolution to

the value of eight hundred millions of dollars!--a sum equal to

the product of the Mexican mines since the days of Cortez! and

twice or thrice the amount of their product in the same fifty

years. The Southern States attributed this result to the action

of the federal government--its double action of levying revenue

upon the industry of one section of the Union and expending it in

another--and especially to its protective tariffs. To some degree

this attribution was just, but not to the degree assumed; which is

evident from the fact that the protective system had then only been

in force for a short time--since the year 1816; and the reversed

condition of the two sections of the Union had commenced before that

time. Other causes must have had some effect: but for the present

we look to the protective system; and, without admitting it to have

done all the mischief of which the South complained, it had yet done

enough to cause it to be condemned by every friend to equal justice

among the States--by every friend to the harmony and stability of

the Union--by all who detested sectional legislation--by every

enemy to the mischievous combination of partisan politics with

national legislation. And this was the feeling with the mass of

the democratic members who voted for the tariff of 1828, and who

were determined to act upon that feeling upon the overthrow of the

political party which advocated the protective system; and which

overthrow they believed to be certain at the ensuing presidential

election.

Thirty Years' View (Vol. 1 of 2) or, A History of the Working of the American Government for Thirty Years, from 1820 to 1850 · 第 34 / 166 章