The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1844-01-05
TO THE EDITOR or THE LONDON TIMES.

one tells You that the Americans would, if they
could, have long and bloody wars with England be-
cause you better clothes and ride p better ear
riages the other tells you that he knows that the
Shareholders have resolved to make war upon Eng
land for the benefit of slavery. | have explained,
that IL we are to have war with England it will be
Tor the possession Of Oregon and that that question
affects more particularly the interests of the North
eastern and Northwestern States but / have said
that if war comes, the South Will put an inerpreta-
ton upon the motives Of England which will excite
their deepest Indignation. Hence, in case of war;
all sections of the country will be united, and it
will be conducted with spirit and energy hitherto
unexamped.
Is there cause 10 apprehend collision between us !,
and if so, it be avoided Is it not the interest
and the duty Of both Governments to cultivate peace
and to establish il the most permanent basis 7
That nations well individuals are responsible to
public opinion, is admitted by Sir Robert Peel, who
on more than one occasion has urged that repeal
OF your discriminating duty on sIave-grown sugar
would be used as an argument to prove that your
efforts to abolish slavery and the slave trade are not
dsinterested If often happens, that in commun-
ties where each is playing pat, persons give credit
to others for sincerity which they do not them
selves profess and that hence they believe the mass
to be actuated by set of motives, when in truth
they are controlled by another; and it sometimes
occurs, that when the parties themselves become
convinced that they have been in error they are new
ertheless impelled in the same direction, some by
motives of personal interest," and others by wish to
appear consistent. This we believe TO be the present
condition OF England. Before giving the reasons of
that belief, will dispose of the assertion Of the Rev
Mr.. Leavitt-which is that "he knew that the slave.
holders in the United States had long since delibe-
rateiy and detntvely resolved TO bring about state
OF war between the two countries for the benefit of
Slavery Now if Mr. Leavitt had said that the best
mi rmed statesmen of the South have long entertain
ca aPPrehensions that England under the hope Of
aDoshng slavery, would seize the first favorable
Pretext to make war on America he would have told
the truth and he might have added that in case of
such war, the South would give the most vigorous
resistance. But he should have qualified his ass r.
tons ny saying that the whole South arc convinced
that 1t is their interest TO preserve peace, and that
on all occasions the South have been uniformly fay-
orabe to peace. 1t is true that they in the past
measures and present policy of England cause Of APP
prehensiOn, but they rely the identity of their in
terests with those Of the great body of the people Of
Engand-on the progress of more liberal and correct
views OF public policy, and upon t. public opinion
and spirit Of the age, which is for peace. In confr
nation of this and directly contradctng MIR. Lea
Wits statement, refer you to extract of letter
from correspondent in New York to J. Scoble,
Esq, dated Goth March, l843 and published by the
British and Foreign Anti-Savery Society in the IN
i-Slauery Reporter Of the 18th May, ls43. The wr-
ter says
"You cannot but have noticed the strong des: ire
manifested on the part of Mr.. Calhoun to maintain
peace with England. He doubtless feels that war
would not only endanger his prospects, but the sta
bility OF the slave question"
This writer says truly that Mr.. Calhoun has mani
iosted str ng desire to maintain peace with Eng
land, but he entirely mistakes the motive Mr. Cal.
houn is governed by enlarged and liberal views of
public policy and not by sectional personal consid
eratons. He and his friends are the advocates of
peace, and will do all that is proper to be done 10
avoid war; and they believe that the best if not
the only means Of doing this is so 10 harmonse and
consolidate the interests Of the two countries as to
render impossible. But cannot so well or so
forcibly express Mr.. Cahoun's opinions as he him
sell has done in letter to me, dated 9Th Of Septem.
Der, l843. He says
have read with interest your letter. 1t gives
much and important Information, which confirms my
previous Impressions. | have, in the present re-
markable state of things, not been inaentiye TO the
course OF events in England, and had come 10 the
conclusion that it would take the turn you anticipate
England has but one alternative-to harmon,e her
interest with that Of the other portion of the civilized
or resort TO force to maintain her pre-emnence III
she adopts the former, freedom of commerce aud
non-interference with the Institutions of other nations
must be the basis Of her policy but if the latter she
must prepare for universal conflict with the civilized
world The danger is that she will select the latter.
If so, it will present Of struggle and violence
unparalleled in the history Of The world which will
end in her downfall; but If thr former, will open
new page of prosperity and ciyiliza ion before
known on the globe.
| Strange as it may SEEM the decision Of the corn
law question and the sugar duties will go far TO de-
eide this great issue. In the advanced state of COM
merce and the arts the great point Of policy for the
older and more advanced nation is to command the
trade of the and less advanced and that can
not be done but by opening free trade in provis-
ions and raw materials with them. The effect of the
contrary policy is, not only to cripple their commerce
and manufactures, by curioilng exchanges, but to
force the and less advanced portion to become
prematurely their competitors. This England now
and feels and that TO remedy the evil the
law and sugar duties lin favor Of her coonies) must
be repeated or that she must resort to force TO main
tain her commercial and manufacturing superiority
If force resorted TO, the blow will first be struck
at the United States Brazil and other slave holding
countries. The reason is obvious Ii is indispensa
bic to give her monopoly of the great staples they
produce, and through them monopoly of the trade
Of the world. The abolition Of slavery would trans
fer the production of cotton, rice, sugar. and forth
to her colonial possessions, and would consummate
the system of commercial monopoly which she has
been so long and Systematically pursuing"
may add, that the opinion of Mr. Calhoun so
forcibly put, is now the opinion Of very large ma
jorty of the American people, and that war for the
Oregon on any other preence, will be attributed
to desire TO emancpate slaves, because you
have ascertained that neither in your colonies nor in
the East Indies can you produce cotton rice, sugar
&c. in competition with slave labor and that there
fore you cannot monopolise these great staples but
by abolishing slavery in the United States, in Cuba,
and Brazil.
In the debate on the sugar duties in February last
Sir Robert Peel said
, awe reserved sugar from the operation of the Ia
riff, partly because wished TO it as an instru-
ment to obtain reduction Of duty upon our own
produce in other countries, but upon this dis
tinct ground-that we did not think it right to give
the free and unlimited admission Of sugar without
reference to the consideration Of its being the pro-
duce of free slave labor. maintained that prn-