The Continental Monthly, Vol. 6, No. 6, December 1864: Devoted To Literature And National PolicyVarious
History
The Continental Monthly, Vol. 6, No. 6, December 1864: Devoted To Literature And National Policy
Various
Literature, Modern -- 19th century -- Periodicals; United States -- Politics and government -- 19th century -- Periodicals
Yet, strong and decided as is my opposition to the course of Napoleon on
the Mexican as well as the Confederate question, I believe that the
policy of Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward on this question has been marked by
great courage, devoted patriotism, and the highest statesmanship. I am
not for mingling this or any other question of foreign or domestic
policy with the maintenance of the Union, but have only answered the
assaults of adversaries on the Mexican and other subordinate issues.
This, however, I must say: that the treaty with Mexico, by which we
abandoned that country, having been ratified, I am opposed to any
violation of its provisions. While I adhere to the opinions expressed at
the time by me against that treaty; while I am opposed to forcing Mexico
into our Union, I believe that Napoleon the Third, unwittingly, by his
invasion, has caused Mexico soon to gravitate, by the overwhelming wish
of her people, into the arms of the great Republic. Thus is it that the
French invasion will have settled forever in our favor the question of
the American equilibrium.
I have published the views expressed in these letters on consultation
with no one. They are my own individual opinions, and I only am
responsible for them. It is quite possible that the Administration may
differ from some of them, but I am just as independent of the
Administration as they are of me. I am not, and never was, a Republican
of 1856 or 1860, and while I have been falsely charged in Europe with
abandoning my free-trade principles, in consequence of the constant and
earnest support given by me to Mr. Lincoln, it must be remembered that a
majority of his Cabinet of 1863 had been Democrats, and supported the
Tariff of 1846. But the Tariff is a very subordinate question, compared
with the salvation of the Union. Besides, if the Tariff of 1846 was
changed, it was not until the 2d of March, 1861, and the change was
caused intentionally, by the previous withdrawal of the Senators and
Representatives of the seceded States from both Houses of Congress.
I have another answer to this charge. I was for the _free list_ of the
Tariff of 1842, as distinctly stated in my first annual Treasury report,
so as to increase our exports, especially of dyed cotton goods, thereby
producing a corresponding augmentation of our imports and revenue. That
portion of the act of 1846 was defeated by Mr. Calhoun, much to my
regret, injury, and annoyance.
Besides, the South, by its rebellion, and by thus forcing on us an
enormous Federal debt, has rendered impossible for many years any other
Tariff but that which will bring the largest revenue. Until this debt is
paid, we must have the highest Tariff for revenue, and it can be so
arranged as, while yielding, when the Union is restored, at least
$150,000,000 annually in gold, at the same time to furnish all
incidental aid to American industry that could be desired.
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