Cotton is king, and pro-slavery arguments : $b comprising the writings of Hammond, Harper, Christy, Stringfellow, Hodge, Bledsoe, and Cartwright, on this important subject
History
Cotton is king, and pro-slavery arguments : $b comprising the writings of Hammond, Harper, Christy, Stringfellow, Hodge, Bledsoe, and Cartwright, on this important subject
Scott, Dred, 1809-1858; Slavery -- Justification; Slavery -- United States; United States -- Fugitive slave law (1850)
manufactures, say the cotton planters; England will take our cotton in
exchange. Thus the merchant and the cotton planter fully appreciate the
value of a market when they find their own encroached upon. The farmer
and manufacturer claim to participate in the benefits of a market for
their labor and produce; and hence this protracted debate and struggle
of contending interests. It is a contest for a market between the
_cotton-grower and the merchant_ on the one side, and the _farmer and
the manufacturer_ on the other. That the manufacturer would furnish this
market to the farmer, admits no doubt. The farmer should reciprocate the
favor; and government is now called upon to render this market
accessible to foreign fabrics for the mutual benefit of both. . . . .
This, then, is the remedy we propose, sir, for the evils which we
suffer. Place the mechanic by the side of the farmer, that the
manufacturer who makes our cloth, should make it from _our_ farmers'
wool, flax, hemp, etc., and be fed by our farmers' provisions. Draw
forth our iron from our own mountains, and we shall not drain our
country in the purchase of the foreign. . . . . We propose, sir, to
supply our own wants from our own resources, by the means which God and
Nature have placed in our hands. . . . . But here is a question of
sectional interest, which elicits unfriendly feelings and determined
hostility to the bill. . . . . The cotton, rice, tobacco, and
indigo-growers of the Southern States, claim to be deeply affected and
injured by this system. . . . . Let us inquire if the Southern planter
does not demand what, in fact, he denies to others. And now, what does
he request? That the North and West should buy--what? Not their cotton,
tobacco, etc., for that we do already, to the utmost of our ability to
consume, or pay, or vend to others; and that is to an immense amount,
greatly exceeding what they purchase of us. But they insist that we
should buy English wool, wrought into cloth, that they may pay for it
with their cotton; that we should buy Russia iron, that they may sell
their cotton; that we should buy Holland gin and linen, that they may
sell their tobacco. In fine, that we should not grow wool, and dig and
smelt the iron of the country; for, if we did, they could not sell their
cotton." (On another occasion, he said:) "Gentlemen say they _will_
oppose every part of the bill. They will, therefore, move to strike out
every part of it. And, on every such motion, we shall hear repeated, as
we have done already, the same objections: that it will ruin trade and
commerce; that it will destroy the revenue, and prostrate the navy; that
it will enhance the prices of articles of the first necessity, and thus
be taxing the poor; and that it will destroy the cotton market, _and
stop the future growth of cotton_."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account