The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-06-16
REMARKS.

D.
MeConneiisville, Morgan CO., o.
REMARKS
&C. J.,p of McConnellsville, Ohio, opens, i
he does not cover, the whole ground of contrO
versy upon Free Trade and Protection. Hi
article treats it as a general question of politi
cal economy, and considers, also, the policy o.
the qualified Free Trade declaration in the In
dependent Democratic platform of principles
adopted by the Ohio Convention. The attitude
of the editor of the Era to the question, in both
these respects, is sufficiently indicated by the
editorial of the 18th March, and in numberess
other articles published as commentaries and
| expositions of the principles and measures in
volved in the discussion during its tendency.
What he has written heretofore, must stand
for such answer as he would probably make, if
he were at home, to so much of g. Us commu-
nicatiOn as puts him upon his defence.
Without any intention of answering for him,
and especially without any purpose of under
taking the discussion at large, we have some
thoughts to offer upon some of the points pre-.
sented
Neither the support nor the opposition of the
Pro-Slavery party to the principle of Protection
is any guide to the truth or expediency of the
matter In 1916, John C. Calhoun contended,
side by side with Henry Clay, for Tariff high
enough for all the purposes of protection and
with equal zeal and even greater ability than
the "father of the American System was able
to bring to its support. In 1882, he explained
his changed position, by answering Mr.. Clay,
that the eonStitutiOnaiity of the measure was
not debated in 1916 to which Mr. Clay re-
piled that it was not then debateable In fact
Mr. Calhoun was only in apparent, not real
to his former ground. In 1916, about
one hundred and twenty five millions of public
debt, and the current expenses Of the Govern
ment, were to be provided for. Direct taxation
would have obliged the South to pay the stipu-
lated compensation for the representation of
the threeffths Of their slave population in Con-
gress and the Federal Executive but the neces-
sary revenue raised by import duties would
cast full two-thirds of the whole burden upon
the free consumers of the North They were
therefore INDUCED much against the wishes of
commercial New England, with adequate pro-
lection at that expense. Under it, they actually
paid full two.thirds of the debt, the whole of
their own internal expenses, and one-third of
those of the South besides and made money
enough out of the bargain, unequal as it was,
to be satisfied with continuance of the policy
to which their whole industrial system had
contormed itself But when the public debt
was so nearly discharged as it was in Jackson's
first Administration, and the Treasury was
about to overflow with surplus revenue
when five per cent. increase upon the cost of |
imports or their rival American products would
no longer be repaid by ten per cent. diminu-
ton OF the Southern share of the national debt
and expenses, a change Of measures was re-
CURED by the changed conditions Of the case.
the principle, such as it was, the interest and
drift remaining the same. They swapped
horses to take II fresh start, and Free Trade
has been ridden with whip and spur ever since
With the South Tariff for revenue, with acct
dental protection, if it might happen, has al |
ways been the doctrine. 1t was never prin-
Clple with y national sentiment in it, but mere
ly sectional question of profit and loss.
Internal improvement by the National treas
ury was repudiatcd, distribution of the surplus
revenue arrested, and notification threatened,
and the whole series of dependent and inter
linked measures were settled, by the great Com
promise of MIR. Clay, which SAVED the Union
one fine day, without Mr.. Webster's help, and,
even against his protest, entered upon the
Journal of the Senate.
Here are several measures, to say nothing
of the fiscal agency of the Government revolu
tonized at the same time, all hanging by each
others skirts, and all so centred in the one
master policy of the South, that no mortal
can infer safe notion of the absolute right or
wrong OF any one of them, from the treat.
ment they received from the slave oligarchy
at the time or from the position now main
tanned towards them
A National Bank, Internal improvements
Distribution Of the Proceeds of the Public
Lands, Protective Tariff are all opposed by the
South Are they therefore the proper Anti.Sla-
very policy Of the North 1t is not enough to
say that the slave States have but one grand
interest, and understand it, Because mere on
position to the interests of the South il not the
duty Of the North. We are not enemies at
war, interested in each Others destruction. IL
may not even be the true policy of the Eman
cipationists for Southern prosperity may be
the spcedest and surSst route to the liberation
of the Southern slaves
IL is neither safe logic, morality, nor policy.
to take diametrical antagonism of measures
for the direction of conduct in opposing a
wrong Whoever lives till Judgment Day will
find that, after all, the devil is even more fool
than rogue, and that it is not wise to conclude
that he always knows his own business best.
Ii is very satirical to say that an opponent
is 80 radically wrong in principle and action
that the right is invariably found by opposing
him in everything; but it is not philosophical
safe, or successful
! G. J. ia perhaps, correct in his notion, that