The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1844-05-09

OOllSu slavery - " uSHtHStOH' htt NC"
are created equaL'-Jefferson. Abundance
more on this point.
Ii is true that in my communication of
March IA, after recllng some OF the liberty
principles of Washington, throwed out an
aIlusion at the close, like the following:
Be sides, the measures of Washington's admins
traion were entirely different from those which en-
gross the attention of political parties at the pres
ent day. What have Congress or parties now 10 do
with the question of assuming the old Colonial
Stale debts, or funding the national debt? or with
the tax on domestic distilled spirits? What have
they 10 do with the war with the Miami indians =
with Agiers the war between France and Great
Britain 1.-THE proclamation Of neutrality, or jays
Treaty Tor even with Madsons Resolutions =
| merely name the foregoing because they
were, excepting the bank question, and of
internal in preference TO- foreign. duties, the
only leading measures Of that adminisra-
lion, contained in authentic histories of the
tlmes-and also 10 show that on none Of
them did parties ofthe present day, Join issue.
did not name them because | considered
them very material TO the present issue
whether the Wings, as they contend, are in
favor VI abolisbing slavery. You have caught
al this topic, like Growing man at slraws,
and have failed in all you have yet written
10 furnish proof on any other and-nOt even
on this.
You claim identity OF views on none of
the above measures excepting bank Of The
United States, and on this The organs Of
your party not only differ materially but
some do not claim 10 be in favor OF bank,
at all. They only claim to be IN flavor of
regulating The currency without stating The
means. But sir, you profess to clalm lden>
thy of views with both Washington and
Jefferson. How then do you reconcile The
doctrine that Jefferson was always opposed
to a bank of the U. S., both in principle and
detail You carefully avoid abiding 10 that
trilling difference Of opinion Henry Clay
in decided language-nol because it was IN.
eapedient merely, but on principle, on high
constitutional grounds, after maturely and
deliberately weighing The subject. llwould
not be singular If mems views should under
go some change on mere questions OF e&pe-
dency, but 1t IS passing strange that a
man OF Henry Clay's discernmen should so
completely change his sentiments on great
constitutional question, which has been in
such constant agitation from the days OF
Washinglon-and having the benefit Of all
The discussions and writings, on the subject,
OF all the statesmen preceding him.
was not in error as you pretend, when
asserted that the paper Of the U. S. bank
was the circulating medium during Wash
inglon's administration. Bank paper is
circulating meGium' because il is The rep.
reSentatiee. merely Of money, but the coin
age Of the U. S. mat is money or specie IT,
sell. One is the medium or representative
Of value--the Other is value, aud not me-
dunn Of value. The error is yours, not
mine.
What is a tariff! or what is denominated
by the Wings the American SystemY /,
il not protection for the sake Of proleclion?
40 moi deny the propriety Of applying pro.
lection, thus defined, to domestic Industry,
but sir in order TO sustain your novel posi-
ZION you must show Ist-- Il hat such tariff
as the aoove was a leading measure OF
Washin9ton's administration, on " hich par
lies differed. 2. That leading parties, al
the present time, and especially Clay and
Van Buren,, differ and join issue 10 rela
ton 10 the prlnciple OF protection to domes
Tic industry. You have not attempted,
much less done, either Of these, and what
you have attempted only tends to strengthen
my previous position. If protection, for the
sake of protection, in rela ton to domestic
manufactures and produce was, al that time,
The object, why was so large an amount of
revenue raised by internal duties on these
same manufactures and produce? Duties
on foreign bottoms all admit operated as a
severe tax on the farmer--while the internal
duty on carriages, horses, snuff, sugar, &c.,
operated as heavy lax on The domestic
manufacturer. And what makes the case
tLn dam
Washington, constantly recommended and
supported these internal lakes, while the
party in opposition, as understand the mat.
Ter, constantly opposed them. Ga this ques-
ton, and this alone, the great battle was
fought over and over again. AS before
stated at seven distinct periods, if not more,
a struggle ensued on this very point. Mar
shall, in his life of Washington, gives the
substance Of the reports and speeches in
Congress at these different periods. Ii
proof Of This | refer YOU to the 81 volume
pages l57, 200-l-2, 226, 244, 299, 1928, 35S.
1t was an object with Washington and
the FIRST Congress 10 render the country in
dependent of foreign nations, in relation TO
the sinews cf war, of which they had felt
so great a necessity during the revolution.
Accordingly Washington in his first address,
or message, In l79O says:
'rhe safety and interests of the people require
that they should promote such manufactures as
tend to render them independent of others for the
essentials particularly Ae military supplies
In conformity To the above recommenda-
ton an act passed imposing duty on the
bottoms of reign vessels, together with
other duties, whcl operated as "a great aud
direct injury on the agricultural Interests Of
The country. 1t is true some We're in favor
Of protecting domestic manufactures RI find
no measure protecting The farming interests
as such bat the leading object was rece-
nue, and to obtain this, domestic mauuIdc.
turers were themselves taxed, and that
heavily. This canno, be denied. Revenue
then, was the object and protection the iu-
cidenl-and this confined principally to
'military supplies rendered necessary to our
safety and independence. That MIR. Ames