Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1865-12-14
The origin OF American Free Trade.

cal QueStlOnS OF the nour on the @ttl Ol
November last "a curious book, which
q soldier found in Georgia and apprecia-
lively slowed away in his knapsack, and
brought home as valuable gift to his
Representative. The title of the ecu
rious book" was Cotton is King" 1t
was written to add to the buttresses that
politicians We're building up against the
back and sides of slavery to perpetuate
the institution, and was published in
Augusta, Georgia, in 1860. Mr.. Kelley
read from this "curious book, with ire
mendous effect, the following passages
from chapter on 1.-THE Economical
Relations of Slavery" ...
1.-THE opposition to the Protective Ia
riff in the South arose from two classes;
the first openly avowed at the time, and
the second clearly deducible from the
policy it pursued; the one to secure a
foreign market for its cotton, the other
to obtain bountiful supply of provis-
ions al cheap rates. Cotton was admit
ted free Of duty into foreign countries
pulsion Y our government increased the
duties on foreign fabrics. The South
exported about twice as much OF that
staple as was supplied to Europe by all
other countries, and there were indica-
tions .dvoring the desire 1t entertained
of monopolizing the foreign markets.
The West India planters could not i'm
port food but at such high rates as to
make it impracticable to grow cotton at
prices low enough to suit the English
manufacturer. To purchase cotton
cheaply was essential to the success of
his scheme of monopolizing its manu-
lacture, and supplying the world with
clothing ..-
The close proximity of the provis-
ion and cotton growing districts in the
United States, gave its planters advan-
tages over all other portions of the
world. But they could not monopolize
the markets unless they could obtain q
cheap supply of food and clothing for
their negroes, and raise their cotton at
such reduced prices as to undersell all
their rivals. A manufacturing popula-
ton, with its mechanical CONDUCTORS, in
the midst OF provision growers, on a
scale such as the protective policy con-
templated, 1t was conceived, would Gre
ate permanent market for their pro-
ducts, and enhance the price; whereas,
if this manufacturing could be prevent
ed, and a system of free trade adopted,
the South would constitute the princi-
pal provision market of the country, and
the fertile lands Of the North supply the
cheap food demanded for its slaves. As
the tariff policy in the outset contem-
plated the encouragement of the pro-
duction of iron, hemp, whisky and the
establishment of wooden manufactures
generally, the South found its interests
but slightly identified with the system,
the coarser qualities of cotton only be-
ing manufactured in the country, and
even these on a diminished scale, as
compared with the cotton crops OF the
South
Cotton, up to the date when this
controversy had been fairly commenced,
was worth in the English market, an av-
erage price price of 20 ITO to As 4-10
cents per pound.
But at this time, widespread and
ruineus depression, both in the culture
and manufacture of the article occurred.
Cotton, in 1926, having fallen in Eng
land as low as IL 90 to 18 $40 cents
per pound, the home market was then
too inconsiderable to be of much impor-
lance, and there existed little hope of
its enlargement to the extent demand
ed by the increasing culture the plant
ers, therefore, looked abroad to the ex-
listing markets, rather than to wait for
The tardilY creating one at home. For
success in the foreign markets they re-
lied mainly upon preparing themselves
to produce cotton at the reduced prices
then existing in Europe. All agricultu
raj products except cotton being exclu-
ded from foreign markets, the planters
found themselves almost the sole export
ers OF the country; and it was to them
source OF chagrin that the North did
NOT az once cooperate with them in
augmenting the commerce of the ma
ton. 1,rH @'s
At this point in the history OF the
controversy politicians found 1t an easy
matter to produce feelings of the deep
est hostility between the opposing par
ties.
The planters were led to believe that
the millions of revenue collected off the
goods was so much deducted from the
value Of the cotton that paid for them,
either in the diminished price they re-
ceived abroad, or in the increased price
they paid for the imported articles. To
enhance the duties for the protection of
our manufacturers, they were persuaded,
would be SO much of an additional tax
upon themselves, FOR the hsneflt OF the
North; and, besides, to give the manu-
facturer such monopoly OF the home
market for his fabrics, would enable
him to charge purchasers an excess over
the true value of his stuff, the whole
amount of the duty. By the protective
policy the planters expected to have the
cost of both provisions and clothing IN
creased, and their ability to monopolize
the foreign markets diminished In q cor
responding degree. If they could es-
sablish free trade, 1t would insure the
American market TO foreign manufac-
tuners; force large number Of North
ern men into agriculture; multiply the
growth and diminish the price of pro-
T.. Il hair ola OF