To this we answer, yes, provided always that the United States donot know how to utilise their national independence so as tocultivate and develop a national industry of their own, and aself-supporting system of commerce and credit which is independentof the world outside.But (it may be urged) is it not evident thatif the United States had continued to exist as a British colony noEnglish corn law would ever have been passed; that England wouldnever have imposed such high duties on American tobacco; thatcontinual quantities of timber would have been exported from theUnited States to England; that England, far from ever entertainingthe idea of promoting the production of cotton in other countries,would have endeavoured to give the citizens of the United States amonopoly in this article, and to maintain it; that consequentlycommercial crises such as have occurred within the last decades inNorth America, would have been impossible? Yes; if the UnitedStates do not manufacture, if they do not found a durable system ofcredit of their own; if they do not desire or are not able todevelop a naval power.But then, in that case, the citizens ofBoston have thrown the tea into the sea in vain; then all theirdeclamation as to independence and future national greatness is invain: then indeed would they do better if they re-enter as soon aspossible into dependence on England as her colony.In that eventEngland will favour them instead of imposing restrictions on them;she will rather impose restrictions on those who compete with theNorth Americans in cotton culture and corn production, &c.thanraise up with all possible energy competitors against them.TheBank of England will then establish branch banks in the UnitedStates, the English Government will promote emigration and theexport of capital to America, and through the entire destruction ofthe American manufactories, as well as by favouring the export ofAmerican raw materials and agricultural produce to England, takematernal care to prevent commercial crises in North America, and tokeep the imports and exports of the colony always at a properbalance with one another.In one word, the American slaveholdersand cotton planters will then realise the fulfilment of theirfinest dreams.In fact, such a position has already for some timepast appeared to the patriotism, the interests, and requirements ofthese planters more desirable than the national independence andgreatness of the United States.Only in the first emotions ofliberty and independence did they dream of industrial independence.
They soon, however, grew cooler, and for the last quarter of acentury the industrial prosperity of the middle and eastern statesis to them an abomination; they try to persuade the Congress thatthe prosperity of America depends on the industrial sovereignty ofEngland over North America.What else can be meant by the assertionthat the United States would be richer and more prosperous if theyagain went over to England as a colony?
In general it appears to us that the defenders of free tradewould argue more consistently in regard to money crises and thebalance of trade, as well as to manufacturing industry, if theyopenly advised all nations to prefer to subject themselves to theEnglish as dependencies of England, and to demand in exchange thebenefits of becoming English colonies, which condition ofdependence would be, in economical respects, clearly morefavourable to them than the condition of half independence in whichthose nations live who, without maintaining an independent systemof industry, commerce, and credit of their own, nevertheless alwayswant to assume towards England the attitude of independence.Do notwe see what Portugal would have gained if she had been governedsince the Methuen Treaty by an English viceroy -- if England hadtransplanted her laws and her national spirit to Portugal, andtaken that country (like the East Indian Empire) altogether underher wings? Do not we perceive how advantageous such a conditionwould be to Germany -- to the whole European continent?
India, it is true, has lost her manufacturing power to England,but has she not gained considerably in her internal agriculturalproduction and in the exportation of her agricultural products?
Have not the former wars under her Nabobs ceased? Are not thenative Indian princes and kings extremely well off? Have they notpreserved their large private revenues? Do not they find themselvesthereby completely relieved of the weighty cares of government?
