An American Tragedy
Nicholas Bilitch
[Reprinted from Land & Liberty,
September-October 1977]
The United States of America from its earliest days has generally
subscribed to a belief in the private ownership of property and the
freedom of private endeavour. Until the aftermath of the Civil War,
the former belief included the owning of and trading in slaves; the
latter belief has been characterised by a long history of protection
and the growth of trusts and cartels, with periodic outbursts of
hostility against foreign imports. A free trade Britain was often
cited as being as good a reason as any for American protectionism.
Prior to the Civil War, there existed a deep division between the
Northern and Southern states regarding free trade. The agricultural
South with its slave labour favoured free trade, whereby raw materials
and agricultural produce might be exported in exchange for
manufactured products from an expanding industrial Britain in
particular. Such a policy incurred the wrath and hostility of the
industrial North. These mutually hostile interests which existed
between the supporters of free trade and those favouring
protectionism, led to threats by the South of secession, the issue of
slavery, though peripheral to the main issue, adding fuel to the
disenchantment and bitterness which was festering between the two
parts of the less than a hundred-year-old democratic Union. Not only
was political stability under immense strain in a nation "half-free
and half-slave", the inevitable incompatibility between
protectionist and free-trade sentiment ran deep, the final breach
leading to a civil war which lasted from April 12 1861 to April 9
1865, in which 600,000 lives were lost out of a total population of
around 32 million; as an indirect result of the war, it has been
estimated that the loss of population was as high as 2.5 million. The
protectionist North won, and for good or bad, the foundations of
modern America were established. It being an ill wind that blows
nobody any good, in 1863 an Emancipation Proclamation abolished
slavery, the Union was saved, and with it the establishment of a
protectionist policy which has too often been the cornerstone of
American domestic economic policy. Lincoln admitted that if the
preservation of the Union meant tolerating slavery, he would readily
have accepted its continued existence. Great man that he was, he
remained a protectionist at heart -- not for personal aggrandisement,
but rather out of ignorance of economic law. A great reconciler, he
paid with his life by pursuing a policy of chivalry towards the
defeated Southerner. His heirs were less benevolent men.
Prior to the Civil War, the issue of free trade versus protection
bothered a number of wise and erudite minds at the heart of American
politics. One man in particular who held strong views on the issue of
minority rights as they were affected by the issue of tariff
protection, was Judge Joseph Story (1779-1845), a member of the U.S.
Supreme Court, who, in 1820 said: ". . . if we are unwilling to
receive foreign manufactures, we cannot reasonably suppose that
foreign nations will receive our raw materials.
We cannot force
them to become buyers when they are not sellers, or to consume our
cotton when they cannot pay the price in their own fabrics." In a
letter to Lord Stowell during the same year he expressed the fear
that, "We are beginning also to become a manufacturing nation;
but I am not much pleased, I am free to confess, with the efforts made
to give an artificial (my italics) stimulus to these
establishments in our country.
The example of our great
manufacturing cities, apparently the seats of great vices, and great
fermentations, affords no agreeable contemplation to the statesman or
the patriot, or the friend of liberty." Notwithstanding such
anxieties, the U.S. tariff continued to be raised in 1824, then again
in 1828, followed by another hefty rise in 1832. In 1828 the tariff
rise on average increased duties to around fifty per cent on the value
of imports!
Other prominent Americans, such as John Caldwell Calhoun (1782-1850),
the U.S. Vice-President from 1825-1832, and a great protector of
minority rights from the abuse of unrestricted majority rule through
centralised government, were alarmed at the growth of privileged
commercial protection being afforded the powerful Northern
manufacturers' lobby. Economically, America had become two distinct
nations, whose commercial interests were in conflict. The South was
rich with the abundance of agricultural produce, much in demand in
Europe-in particular, the U.K.-while the North was becoming
industrialised, and out to secure a domestic monopoly of manufactures
against European products with which it could not readily compete.
Calhoun stated the problem in a nutshell when he said, "The
question is in reality one between the exporting and non-exporting
interests of the country."
Among visitors to the U.S. was our own William Cobbett who wrote in
his Political Register for 1833, that "All the Southern
and Western States are, commercially speaking, closely connected to
Birmingham, Sheffield, Manchester and Leeds; . . . they have no such
connections with the Northern States, and there is no tie whatsoever
to bind them together, except that which is of a mere political
nature.
Here is a natural division of interests, and of
interests so powerful, too, as not to be counteracted by anything man
can do. The heavy duties imposed by Congress upon British manufactured
goods is neither more nor less than so many millions a year taken from
the Southern and Western States, and given to the Northern States."
The advance of protection in the interests of the Northern
manufacturers at the expense of the rest of the Union angered men like
Calhoun, who complained most bitterly that, "Government is to
descend from its high appointed duty, and become the agent of a
portion of the community to extort, under guise of protection,
tribute from the rest of the community." (my italics)
Calhoun's rising anger at the continued levying of higher duties
passed by a Congress surrounded by corrupt self-seeking vested
interests, was mirrored by the rising disenchantment of those States
who stood to suffer most from such blatant discrimination favouring
the Northern industrialists. Three States, Virginia, Georgia and North
Carolina, gave notice that they would ignore the discriminatory
tariffs being imposed by the introduction of nullifying ordinances. By
now, Calhoun was representing South Carolina in the Senate. "The
essence of liberty", he said, "comprehends the idea of
responsible power -- that those who make and execute the laws should
be controlled by those on whom they operate-that the governed should
govern.
No government based on the naked principle that the
majority ought to govern, however true the maxim in its proper sense,
and under proper restrictions, can preserve its liberty even for a
single generation. The history of all has been the same -- violence,
injustice and anarchy, succeeded by the government of one, or a few,
under which the people seek refuge from the more oppressive despotism
of the many."
In other words, undiluted democracy where proper constitutional
checks are absent or ignored, leads to tyranny and the arrogance of a
corrupted. majority using the machinery of government for private
aggrandisement and personal gain by oppressing the natural right of
minorities. The very liberties the War of Independence was supposed to
bring into being were being undermined by government favouring those
selfish interests by legislating on behalf of industrial producers in
search of captive markets for their production. Outrage, bitterness
and resentment were, in the nature of things, bound to follow; other
issues, such as the existence of slavery were inevitably brought to
the fore as the Northern States reacted against the accusations
levelled against them by Southern politicians; talk of secession and
the dissolution of the Union gathered momentum as accusations and
counter-accusations grew in force. As the tariff controversy raged
between 1828 and 1831, Calhoun's protests attracted a number of gifted
and articulate supporters. In particular, Hugh Swinton Legare
(1797-1843), lawyer and statesman from South Carolina, though not
supporting nullification, was just as outspoken an opponent of the
tariff policy as Calhoun, when, in 1831, he protested that, "The
authors of this policy are indirectly responsible for this deplorable
state of things, and for all the con-sequences that may grow out of
it. They have been guilty of an inexpiable offence against their
country. They found us a united, they have made us a distracted
people. They found the union of these states an object of fervent love
and religious veneration; they have made even its utility a subject of
controversy among very enlightened men . - . . I do not wonder at the
indignation which the imposition of such a burden of taxation has
excited in our people, in the present unprosperous state of their
affairs.
Great nations cannot be held together under a united
government by anything short of despotic power, if any one part of the
country is to be arrayed against another in a perpetual scramble for
privilege and protection.
"
The air was being filled with hate and bitterness; the arguments of
the Northern protectionists grew cruder and cruder, so that President
General Jackson, outraged by Calhoun's threat of nullification, and if
driven to it, secession, ordered his law officers out of their beds in
the early hours of the morning to see if there was a case for
impeaching his Vice-President for treason, threatening that if Calhoun
were guilty he would have him hang from the gallows for such infamy.
Reason and common-sense were giving way to the naked power politics of
populist democracy and mob oratory at its very worst, constitutional
government being abandoned to the greed and avarice of selfish vested
interests. Secession threats had come at different times from both the
Northern States and the Southern States; however, a temporary truce
was reached on the tariff question by the introduction of the
Compromise Act The Act only "papered over" a situation which
was rapidly passing the point of no return. A pyrrhic victory by the
South only added to the mounting hostility that the Northern States
felt for their Southern countrymen. It was then that the Northerners'
frustration at the South's stubborn resistance to the imposition of
protective tariffs took a new and ugly turn. The issue was slavery.
The North charged the South with violating human rights, not to
mention undermining Northern prosperity by the use of slave labour in
unfair competition; the South countered by charging the Northerners
with humbug, accusing them of using wage-slaves in the form of large
numbers of illiterate immigrant labourers paid low wages for long
hours, and exploiting them under appalling factory conditions. The
South, for good measure, argued that they were obliged to look after
their slaves in sickness and in health, whereas the North could (and
did) discharge its labour force without compensation when it ceased to
be of any use, like so much worn-out plant and machinery. America had
become two nations the conflict of interest had reached a point where
reconciliation seemed beyond a reasonable solution. The dogs of war
were on the loose; the break-up of the Union seemed inevitable. The
only question left was when, and how?
A new nation founded on "Life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness" had tragically built into its make-up no adequate
means of discharging its duty to safeguard the rights of minorities
and the fundamental liberty of the individual. Group interests as
expressed through majority rule stood paramount. The Constitution was
flawed and incapable of protecting the individual from the tyranny of
mob rule. Corrupt politics, which to this day bedevil American
democracy, had taken deep root in a society founded on freedom and
equality before the law. There is no doubt that the existence of
slavery was a black spot on the American Republic. Sooner or later its
abandonment was certain to take place; had free trade and sound
constitutional government been the cornerstone of a free America, its
demise as an institution would have been inevitable. Its continued
existence acted as a convenient club with which the protectionist
North could beat the free-trade South; in reality few Northerners
cared a fig as to whether the South owned slaves or not, and if their
demand for tariff protection had not met with stern resistance by the
Southerner, they would have continued tolerating its existence.
Slavery notwithstanding, the fundamental issue was whether "one
section of the nation was to be made a tributary to another; whether
property guaranteed by the Constitution was safe or not, if the North
objected to an economic system which was different from its own;
whether the Southern planter should be forced to take his morality
from the Northern businessman; whether an agrarian civilisation could
preserve its character or should he forced to conform to a disliked
industrial one; whether a section of the country was to be allowed to
maintain its own peculiar set of cultural values or be coerced
to conform to those of an alien and disliked section by force of
numbers; a question of what would become of liberty if Union
were to mean an enforced uniformity." (John Thurslow
Adams, The Epic Of America, 1938). In spite of a bloody and
disastrous Civil War which ended some 112 years ago, many of those
same questions still remain to worry large numbers of liberty-loving
Americans.
On April 12, the South Carolinians fired on Fort Sumter; the die was
cast; the next four years were ones of tragedy and blood4etting, the
aftermath of which was to alter the whole course of American history
in ways the founding fathers could not have envisaged. In spite of
America's commitment to free enterprise and capitalism, the issue of
free trade remains unresolved; the corrupt practices that worried and
outraged men like Calhoun and Story continue to undermine the
political institutions of a great nation.
The years following the end of the Civil War saw the degradation of
the South, the growth of gigantic frauds and wild land speculation;
hordes of cheap immigrant labour competing with freed slaves -- both
groups landless and ignorant -- forming the nucleus of today's urban
poor, relying on public works and relief which have brought great
metropolises like New York to bankruptcy, while outbreaks of civil
strife tax the budgets and harass the officialdom of the United States
to the point where anarchy and inflation have taken over from orderly
government and civil tranquility. The declining standards of
government ethics that the old Southern politicians complained of have
produced a bitter harvest, so that organised crime in America accounts
for sums of money which exceed the budgets of many relatively
prosperous independent nations; in fact, a self-governing criminal
oligarchy exists under the effective protection of the U.S. Government
elected by the people of the World's largest democracy.
If there is a lesson in all of this for us, might it not be that the
dream of a United States of Europe, containing many languages, customs
and conflicting interests, arising out of long and diverse histories,
makes such a dream more a prospect for a future nightmare, rather than
a recipe for peace and prosperity?
Most Britons have a long-standing affection for America -- often
taking the form of a love / hate relationship; it is therefore
necessary that we should take special note of those factors in that
fine country's history which brought about the undermining of the
dream its early settlers prayed and worked for. Those who refuse to
learn the lessons of history seem fated to repeat those tragic errors
which I have briefly recited.
|