No nation has been so misconstrued and so misjudged as respectsits future destiny and its national economy as the United States ofNorth America, by theorists as well as by practical men.Adam Smithand J.B.Say had laid it down that the United States were, 'likePoland,' destined for agriculture.This comparison was not veryflattering for the union of some dozen of new, aspiring, youthfulrepublics, and the prospect thus held out to them for the futurenot very encouraging.The above-mentioned theorists haddemonstrated that Nature herself had singled out the people of theUnited States exclusively for agriculture, so long as the richestarable land was to be had in their country for a mere trifle.Greatwas the commendation which had been bestowed upon them for sowillingly acquiescing in Nature's ordinances, and thus supplyingtheorists with a beautiful example of the splendid working of theprinciple of free trade.The school, however, soon had toexperience the mortification of losing this cogent proof of thecorrectness and applicability of their theories in practice, andhad to endure the spectacle of the United States seeking theirnation's welfare in a direction exactly opposed to that of absolutefreedom of trade.
As this youthful nation had previously been the very apple ofthe eye of the schoolmen, so she now became the object of theheaviest condemnation on the part of the theorists of every nationin Europe.It was said to be a proof of the slight progress of theNew World in political knowledge, that while the European nationswere striving with the most honest zeal to render universal freetrade possible, while England and France especially were actuallyengaged in endeavouring to make important advances towards thisgreat philanthropic object, the United States of North America wereseeking to promote their national prosperity by a return to thatlong-exploded mercantile system which had been clearly refuted bytheory.A country like the United States, in which such measurelesstracts of fruitful land still remained uncultivated and where wagesruled so high, could not utilise its material wealth and increaseof population to better purpose than in agriculture; and when thisshould have reached complete development, then manufactures wouldarise in the natural course of events without artificial forcing.
But by an artificial development of manufactures the United Stateswould injure not only the countries which had long before enjoyedcivilisation, but themselves most of all.
With the Americans, however, sound common sense, and theinstinct of what was necessary for the nation, were more potentthan a belief in theoretical propositions.The arguments of thetheorists were thoroughly investigated, and strong doubtsentertained of the infallibility of a doctrine which its owndisciples were not willing to put in practice.
To the argument concerning the still uncultivated tracts offruitful land, it was answered that tracts of such land in thepopulous, well-cultivated states of the Union which were ripe formanufacturing industry, were as rare as in Great Britain; that thesurplus population of those states would have to migrate at greatexpense to the west, in order to bring tracts of land of thatdescription into cultivation, thus not only annually causing theeastern states large losses in material and intellectual resources,but also, inasmuch as such emigration would transform customersinto competitors, the value of landed property and agriculturalproduce would thereby be lessened.It could not be to the advantageof the Union that all waste land belonging to it should becultivated up to the Pacific Ocean before either the population,the civilisation, or the military power of the old states had beenfully developed.On the contrary, the cultivation of distant virginlands could confer no benefit on the eastern states unless theythemselves devoted their attention to manufacturing, and couldexchange their manufactures against the produce of the west.Peoplewent still further: Was not England, it was asked, in much the sameposition? Had not England also under her dominion vast tracts offertile land still uncultivated in Canada, in Australia, and inother quarters of the world? Was it not almost as easy for Englandto transplant her surplus population to those countries as for theNorth Americans to transplant theirs from the shores of theAtlantic to the banks of the Missouri? If so, what occasion hadEngland not only continuously to protect her home manufactures, butto strive to extend them more and more?
The argument of the school, that with a high rate of wages inagriculture, manufactures could not succeed by the natural courseof things, but only by being forced like hothouse plants, was foundto be partially well-founded; that is to say, it was applicableonly to those manufactured goods which, being small in bulk andweight as compared to their value, are produced principally by handlabour, but was not applicable to goods the price of which is lessinfluenced by the rate of wages, and as to which the disadvantageof higher wages can be neutralised by the use of machinery, bywater power as yet unused, by cheap raw materials and food, byabundance of cheap fuel and building materials, by light taxationand increased efficiency of labour.
Besides, the Americans had long ago learnt from experience thatagriculture cannot rise to a high state of prosperity unless theexchange of agricultural produce for manufactures is guaranteed forall future time; but that, when the agriculturist lives in Americaand the manufacturer in England, that exchange is not unfrequentlyinterrupted by wars, commercial crises, or foreign tariffs, andthat consequently, if the national well-being is to rest on asecure foundation, 'the manufacturer,' to use Jefferson's words,'must come and settle down in close proximity to theagriculturist.'
