Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-07-03

tho common legislative council pr.
would England have any securi y for her riyb,.S
would not eight HUNDRED French representa-
'ives DO u majority over five hundred EnyI;sh
representstves.and would no, the Il st az, NJ ND.
federal legislature, assuming the will of the mn.
jOrty as their charter, aud its Interest "a ,b.;, M
j.ct. sweep tn. whole commerce of Eoe,aoJ
from the ocean Would NOT Enyi.oL -;
and TO this point wish your attentinu--would
not England be reduced to u conditiou of cola
NAL vassalage TO France!
Aud here, sir, IL is as curious nv il il NAL ,
choly and distressing, to seo how striking i. ,h.
analogy between that colonial vassni,ys IN
which the manufacturing States have r.Jn.sS
tho planting States, aa.i that which form.rIv
bound tho Anslo American colonies to tho Bril-
Is" empire IL rpeech recently delivered nv q
gentleman from Kentucky, (nOi Of this House,l
'"e o'ator' IN dcnounc,us FREQ trade, thus ex-
presses himself: "Gentlemeu deceive the,n-
selves. u 10 not free trade they arc recommend.
"g 10 our acceptance. Ii 10, in effect the Brit.
u" colonial system that we arc invjted tn adon,.
aug ther poiicy prevail, it will lead substau-
'iaiy to tho REORGANIZATION Of these stare. nm
uer the commercial dominion Of Great Britain ~
"ou'o % d'ihcuit to concentrate. in the sauna
NUMBER OF words, greater perverson OF ideas,
and greater mass of error, than we nave i'm
'nis extract. Ne c0lonized under The dominion
OF England! What s-mblance Of founda,;om
I" mere Tor such an assertion? Does III. CO.
vernnent OF Great Britain prevent the United
c.. a'er, urec"y or Indirectly, from enjoying a
Tree commerce with all the rest of IN. world mr.
even pretend to the right Of doingso Every
QUO Ap"ws she does not. But. sir, tile southern
States Ut this Unvn are reduced TO a cond;,;o,,
s,r'c"y, anh 10 oil 'ntents aud purposes. coloni-
s'' u"aer the dominion of the manufacturing
states; coalition incOmparabIy worse than
that from which our fore fathers released Them
selves ny tn revolution. Let "a. trace out TN.
analogy. England said to her American colo.
MES. yon shall trade with the rest of m.
Wor'u Tor such manufactures as are produced IN
ne mother country. The manuractu, inp state.
10Y W "eie southern colonies you sha all not rade
VIII" '"e rest OF the world fur such manufacture.
10 "e PI"dnce, under penalty of tori, per cent.
UPON mo value OF every cargo detected in tho
,'cI commerce; which penalty aforesaid shall
10 Iev'ed, collected. and paid. out of The pro.
| ducts CT your industry. To nnurish and sus,.ir
ours NOW, sir, In what solitary particul.r
uoes TINS American colonial system differ from,
| the former British colonial system on the .cor.
OF principle! Are not tho most vital in,er..,.
Inc most 'hcontestihle righ's of the southern
o'a'eS violated and sacrificed 10 promote the iu-
terests o! tho governing majority; aud ia tbis
| step-dame GOvernInent any thing more tbau
| the mere instrument Of that majority in making
the inheritance of one portion Of this great fami
~ OF States tributary to another portion
But, sir, while the principle of colonial vassa.
iage is he Same that from which our furefa,b.
ers redeemed themselves, the actual oppression
under which the southern States are now snffer
| ing, Il speak IN measured language ! IL NOR.
| than one hundred times greater. The marke,,
0t all the rest of the world from which the En-
ylish colonies were excluded by the colonial mo-
licy OF the mother country, were comparatively
Insignificant. England was the hes, and main.
raj market Of The colonies. and the restrictions
which excluded them from The rest of Enrons
were almost purely nominal. On The o,ber
na"d, s'r' the markets OF the world from which
| tins American colonial system excI,de. Nh.
southern Stale3. atanlu,elv cir al 4.
prosperity, might almost say, to their existence
ANA Use no figure when say that the cuns,,n-
| nation of the avowed purpose Of this syst,n.
the end To which it inevitably tends would
make the southern, as planting commuuity a
dismal waste, void alike Of lighs, and life, and
\ hope
will now proceed to bestow "a pa.siog notice
afou some OF Tie grounds Of general e xpeaiency
upon which the advocates Of the protecting sys-
TEN have attempted TO sustain il as mcasure If
Daiional policy.
| IL Is admitted. on all hands, that if other ma
lions would adopt tho policy of free trade, js
would be wise and expedient for the United
STATES to pursue the same policy: but, it is con-
'ehded, that no nation can prosper without COM
mercial restrictions, while other nations adopt
and adhere TO them. THIS conceive to he rho
radical error upon which I is whole system WIS
originally founded; yet il has NOT the slightest
! foundation in reason. Take the case Of our
commerce with England II is admitted that, if
| "' Eou"'J "ouiu receive our gram and llm-
oer without prOhIbitye Restrictions, il would be-
wIso IN US TO receive her manufactures in like
manner. but how Is the case varied by her re-
insai 10 receive our grain aud lumber? To tho
states which produce this grain and lumber.
hs refusal, on tho part of England, is, 10 itself,
complete prohibition of the Importation of her
manufactures. But England receives our cotton
| more freely, and to greater amount than any
other nation, indeed than all the other nntion.
] on the earth together. Does not the same prin-
c'p'e winch would make IL wise aud expedien,
10 receive manufactures in exchange for grain
aha lumber render IL equally so to receive them
10 exchange for cotton? The advantage which
would acrrne to the cotton planters and III. na-
.!oh rom the free exchange of American cotton
Icr English manufactures, would not he dimi-
n'shed TO the amount Of single cent by the re-
tusal Of England to exchange her manufac,Ir.,
with equal freedom, for American grain and
lumber. IL is true. that il England would re-
| ce'Vo our grain and lumber freely as she does
our COTTON, we should derive benefit from this
c4G"a"ge, and England herself wouj derive n
sun creator benefit. But is it not the very ex-
raVasanre OF human folly, TO deprive ourselves
voluntarily, and graruitou-ly, Of the im,nense
oenoht OF those exchanges which she offers 10 US
oy tne free admission of orr cotton, aud the
cheapness OF her manufactures. merely becauso
we cannot also obtain like benefit from a SINH
lar exchange Of our grain aud lumber?
The loss Of one branch of co,n,nerce an f,r
from being an adequate motive for refusing
WIZ" Pue,Ie pervorseness, to carry on the other
branch, Should rntter operate a. p ,no,ive for
extending aod improving it. lf the United States
"ero the property OF a single Individual, he
| ma intg Rr.n Ilrya Il 4