The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-05-24
CONFEDERATE FREE TRADE.

Cunf fnhb lnAUbr
The gentlemen who represent the r emains
Of the late Confederacy in Congress are con-
sistent in their advocacy of free trade. It is
the doctrine Of the Confederate Constitution,
which provided that mo b~ounties shall be
granted from the treasury, nor shall any
duties or taxes on importations from foreign
nations be laid to promote or foster any in
dustry." Here we have pure and undefled
De mocratic doctrine-a tariff for revenue
only without any recognition of the idea of
protection for the development Of home in
dustries. There is significance in this. The
Constitution of the United States, formed to
promote the general welfare and TO develop
all the forces of her people, permitted the
adoption of q policy for the stimulation and
protection of manufactures. The statesmen
of the revolutionary period recognized the
necessity of such legislation and it early be-
came the fixed policy of the government.
here they found their natural breeding ground
in the South. Free labor allied itself with
protection, and the advocates and defenders
of slavery were also the advocates and de-
tenders of free trade. The old South had no
use for protection, because it had no indus
tries to protect. Thus protection, which fos-
tered manufacturing in the North and made
New England populous and wealthy, came to
stand in the Southern mind for a vicious and
dangerous idea, opposed to the two great
Southern industries, cotton raising and slave
breeding. Free trade became an essential
cause it would benefit the South as because
protection benefited the North. It thus be-
came an important weapon in the hands Of
the Southern leaders who plotted the dis
memberment of the Union and finally,
when those States had seeded and they
reached the point of forming a new govern
ment, free trade was incorporated in the Con-
stitution. The cornerstone Of the new gov
eminent was to be slavery and its cap-sheap
free trade. This was the logical conclusion
of the old theory that protection fostered
free labor, and was therefore the enemy Of
slave labor. The Confederates did not want
manufactures nor diversified industries. It
was to be a continuation of cotton-raising and
slave-breeding. Further, the pledge of free
trade was expected to win the prompt recog-
milton of England, who would take undis-
puted possession of the Southern markets and
exchange her manufactures for raw cotton. It
would be pauper labor on one side against
slave labor on the other, with no conflict
ing or competing interests on either. This
was the state of things, and the con-
stitution that Mr.. Mills. present chairman
of the ways and means committee, and nearly
every Southern Congressman fought for. If
the rebellion had succeeded they would have
had by perpetual constitutional enactment
the legislation and the economic condition
they are now trying to secure by legislation.
The difference is this: that while they were
then trying to perpetuate slavery by heading
off all the influences which tended to foster
and develop free labor, they are now trying to
maintain a system of cheap peasant labor.
closely akin to peonage. From their stand
point they are entirely consistent in advocat-
ing the policy formulated in the Confederate
Constitution, that "no duties or taxes on i'm
portations from foreign nations shall be laid
to promote or foster any industry"