Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1828-12-10

is not true that what il best fr the interests of
individuals Is always best for those of nations ALSO.
Many very many, are the historical acts and istra-
tions which To be derived from this work OH the
wealth OF nations in confederation of WIN, is here adj
vanccd AS take particular pleasure in condemn
ing tins writer out OF his own mouth shall reserve
Tor another occasion. list of contrasted quotations,
which If mistake not, will place the facts and rcu-
sonngs this grcnt writer, in different parts of his
work, such palpablc opposition that bis abcst I'D
vocates and most devoted admirers will find h,nseves
unable 70 harmonizc :bc ircongr,ous muss lCIn the
mean tune, will present To the consideration Of the
public what has been said by VIVA. Cobbctt rs To- the
analogy OF interests, to the identity cf policy exist
ing between nations and urliy iduas Ina very recent
number ofihc Weekly Register in editorial, COM
m"nt upon The iiusksson policy, Goblet makes .,,o
following shrcwd and ingenious observations: "No-
thing So plausible, and yet nothing alsc, than
the notion that two nations could both profit from, tra
ding with each other. Individual cases were cited 10
prove that it might be 30; but I most amply de-
monstratcd that theirs analopy in the
cases; that the trade between individuals or bodies Of
persons, ali IN the country, bore onaioy ,cbuf-
S0Hre to trade between nutCns which, from the very
nature OF things must have interests Opposed, TO those
otoaCh other; that, III short the Whole set of notions
wore an obsur,lity and thu, in case, to rive M
our exclusive advantages III commerce. was neither
more les than to put ourselves upon level us
nearly as possible, with the poores. and weakest ma
tons IN the world Feeble nations have always been
the strenuous advocates OF FREQ trade ind neutral
rights. Powerful nations on the contrary have
always heen for restricted commerce; for hard bur-
gains with their neighbours; for cnsurinr greater
gains from them, than they to receive in return
ana IN war, Tor the strictcst rules relative 10 contra
DRnd' Tor the most r.Id observance Of hlockadps rn
OF every thing tending TO make commerce Weld to
power. Powerful, nations have ALWAYS cndcavolrcd 70
Keep their POOR ncighbors still poor and their feeble
neghboTS sill feeble. Powerful nations have never
talked OF sweet reciprocity those only cry ont for
reciprocity, that their neighbour better OF than
themselves Thus continues this ingenious writer
II was with England, tl she became cncnn,bcrrd
with debts TIL her very soil mortgaged for more
than II was worth, and until she knew moi which WAY
10 turn to satisfy the craving demands OF her inyrais
~ Par cft"Fs For ngos, nay for centuries; from tho
very earliest Of times, she carried commerce under
" pTohNhnry sY4ttm, aud by sort of compuls II
rracfscd on her neighbours She dill not ram
money doubtless she did not gain riches bv this sv,
tom 50 much rs she migi, have gained nv another
system; but she prevented her neighbours from gain
g even IN p7opnrton TO what she gained hersrrt she
tolerated no commerce by which shc did not rnin
nnrrtlap he cThbourr gained and thus she gaincd
hrr great relative prcpondcratng power she rejected
al gain that did not add 10 her power: anJ this was;
Tie basis OF all her laws relative TO commerce and
navigation Her Statesmen We're not such moon
bind wrrtch"s, to or mae;n. that they saw.
any gain IN measures calculated make the profit oil
her neighbours cGnal her thcY could not brin
Themselves down TO that hUCks,cr-kc state OF mind
Which could contemplate profit unaccompnnicd with
power; md therefore 20 tails t. them about free trad.
would lave appeared 20 b. like the dreaming of mn
ldeot ct us ccntcrp plate in this strong mirror the
true ana living features of British policy. Goblet
my indeed be said to hold the mirror IN To tho
United States, to sh"w Great Britain her own i'm
ng", and the very body of her commercial system
rs form and pressure. Where is now the ANALOGY of
Mr. Smith between Individual and national interests
Does Il moi appear TO be-. what fact u is a mere
pnusble picture of the ina ginutIon Destitute of INV
real foundation in he affairs of aatl.-. Individuals
are not mGCh thC habit of viewing the SUCCESS m
thyir neishbors with Jealous eye nations arc
There Is no mmcdiate danger the prosperity of the
one calculated threaten the success ur he i1dr,oo
tcncc OF another Amongst individuals an cnvioui and
Jealous rivalry Is consider cd mark Of n want nj;
t:uc magnoDimy, and primo fhcio evidence of the
restitution of the genuine attributes OF intesc ual
power. But with nations The is very different
"ac.iIl ana jealous rivalry Is lay of their nature
founded III the great a% OF self preservation Hence
the struggles and the Schedules we have Witnessed
10 preserve IN Europe balance of payer. DO YOU
hear gifts being necessary preserve balancc
OF power amongst lndiTiduGl% How lse and decep-
tive Ore most arguments of analogy and the most pro.
found ogiCans upon the most important subjects have
constantly warned usagain't this gns atuus which
Is ready to lure out of the path of common
sense But these notions about the identity OFF
the policy adopted 10 the interests OF individuals and
OF nations CLAIM for themselves the authority of COM
mon sense. I,it comm and every other kind
OF sense when lnis-applied becomes no sense None
VIII deny thtt nations fond of power that they !
Grc pcrpctuay pressing after It, that degree OF sell
fsbncsS Is not only countcnunced hut applaudcd in
them winch would be destructive to the character of
any Individual and which would array AGAINST him the
united cxccraiions Of his fellow citizenS Where 10
the analogy here between nations and individuals, In
fine IT may be ,arlcssly asserted, although the con-
ruTy has ."cn maintained b. The celebrated Mr. Smith
hat neither ne any of his admirers can point out
a single instance in which the analogy Of character
or of conduct fl for individuals and for nlons can be-
fairly aud strictly made out TIE one is natural.
the other political, artificial being; and though VIC
have often heard Of the being sunk in the polit
clan, yet never til Mr.. A. Smith informed us Of il had
we imagined tiat artificial entity, political society
endowed III its aggregate capacity 9th the functions
feelings interests and propensitics Of the individual
man. CObbcit has well said, that 'the whole set of
notions founded on this supposed analogy are an nbsur
dty" YThc danqeC of all arguh cnts drawn from ana
logy, Dfhet shall stop tie point where the
analogy ceases, and the very moment we trunspnss
that point III not before we plunged into iaon-
less guph of error and ubsurdity. But to show the
absurdty Of Mr. Smiths analogy little more in de-
tail: lie says very quantity, and with an air which
indicates great ASSURANCE his part that hc had Ia