Conf Pam #640 
 
 DTTlDSQbSZ 
 
REMARKS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 POLICY OF PROHIBITING 
 
 THK 
 
 EXPORTATION OF COTTON. 
 
 BY 
 
 OXE OF THE PEOPLE. 
 
 CHARLESTON : 
 
 STKAM-POWKR PRESSES OF EVANS * COGSWKLF., 
 No. 3 Broad and 10.3 East Bay Street. 
 
 186L 
 
Digitized by the Internet Arciiive 
 in 2010 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/remarksonpolicyoOOchar 
 

 THE COTTON QUESTION. 
 EXPORT OR NO EXPORT. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 " Lot thei'c be no strife I pray thee between me and thee — for we be 
 brethren." 
 
 It oftcns happens that disputaiits are nearer to each other 
 than the}^ seem to he. It is so on the cotton question. 
 One writer insists that not a hale of cotton shall he 
 exported ; another sa^'s the export ought to he permitted 
 and promoted. They appear to he in absolute opposition 
 to each other, hut they are not. They refer to different 
 classes of cases. They look on the object from different 
 points of view, and perhaps have onl}' to change places to 
 agree in opinion. If they will not change places, hut con- 
 tinue to occupy their several stand-points, they may dispute 
 forever. 
 
 One reasoner, A, would prohibit the export of cotton 
 totally. He has in view a class of cases where vessels shall 
 come from Europe to our ports, in ballast, by collusion 
 with the Lincoln Government, and carry away the cotton 
 crop, for the benefit of the exporters, directly, and indirect- 
 ly for the advantage of the ISrorthern States. The scheme 
 would suit them, but not us. Such an arrangement 
 woukl give England a greater control over the cotton 
 market than she has now. She now imports for the 
 greater part of Euro})e ; she would then import for the 
 
North also. Instead of !N"ew York exporting cotton to 
 Liverpool, Liverpool would export to j^ew York. This 
 mode of supply would not be so advantageous to the 
 !N^orth as that heretofore enjoyed, but it would be better 
 than no supply at all. They would willingly adopt it. 
 But such a trade would be an intolerable indignity to the 
 South. It would be an attempt to regulate our commerce, 
 partly by enemies, partly by neutrals, with no reference to 
 our interests or opinions. A says, very justly, let us refuse 
 to submit for a moment to any such one-sided traffic, in 
 the arrangement of which we are treated with scorn or 
 indifference by the contracting parties. Let us withhold 
 every bale of cotton. All sides will agree with him ; there 
 will be no dissenting voice. 
 
 B, on the other hand, says, permit and encoui'age the 
 export of cotton. He alludes to another class of cases, 
 where a foreign merchant brings to our ports a cargo of 
 goods at his own risk, in defiance of blockades. He de- 
 sires to take cotton in return. He wants that and nothing 
 else. Without it, he will go home in ballast. A half voy- 
 age — a voyage without a return cargo — will not pay his 
 risks. If cotton be denied to him, his enterprise will be dis- 
 couraged and crushed. Shall it be denied ? B thinks that 
 the merchant, under these circumstances, should have the 
 cotton he desires. If there be not enough in port, a suffi- 
 cient quantity should be brought from the interior to meet 
 his wants. We should do everything to encourage him. 
 Such a trade will come by no arrangement with Lincoln ; 
 it will go on in spite of him. It is not a scheme of foreign 
 Governments; it is the result of private enterprise. It 
 would go farther and faster than anything else, to induce 
 and compel the interposition of foreign States. They 
 would interfere to protect their traders. It would bring 
 about this result without fail and immediately. There is 
 every reason, then, for promoting such an interchange of 
 merchandise, and none against it. It is probable that all 
 parties, A among the rest, would agree readily to this opin- 
 ion. But if not, why not? 
 
The only reason assigned for refusing absolute!}" to ex- 
 port cotton is, that by refusing we shall enforce a recog- 
 nition of the Southern Confederacy by foreign States. 
 But recognition and the export of cotton for foreign goods 
 are two distinct things. They have no necessary connec- 
 tion. It would be a mistake, a })olitical blunder, to con- 
 found them. One is a question of courtes}-, the other of 
 trade. International law permits the recognition of new 
 States, but does not enjoin it. It is a right but not a duty. 
 If a people, from no unfriendly motive, but consulting 
 their own interests merel}'. neglect or refuse to recognize a 
 rising State, they aftbrd no adequate cause for complaint. 
 The interchange of ambassadors is a common courtesy 
 among States; but the neglect of one nation to send a 
 minister to another is not a hostile or even an unfriendly 
 act. There may be adequate reasons for delay. 
 
 If recognition be a matter of international courtesy, it is 
 not to be coerced. We should neither seek it eagerly, nor 
 attempt to force it. When voluntarily offered, we may 
 freely accept it. We may even address reasons in a proper 
 manner to foreign States, to expedite the proceeding by 
 showing how it would promote their welfare. But to go 
 beyond this, directly or indirectly, by retaliatory measures 
 of another kind, would be consistent with neither right nor 
 self-respect. Certainlj-, it cannot be the wish of a high- 
 minded people to constrain by forcible means an act of 
 respect from a foreign Power, which it has a right to 
 bestow or refuse, without giving just cause of offence. We 
 should neither compel nor supplicate. Courtesy enforced 
 is worthless. Courtesy petitioned for is equally without 
 value. We seem nevertheless to desire both. A\^e send 
 our incipient ambassadors to Europe, offering civilities 
 before we receive them ; and we threaten foreign nations 
 with certain contingencies in the cotton trade if our vol- 
 unteered courtes}- is not properly received. 
 
 If we have a product of such potency in commerce as to 
 oblige other nations to come to us and seek it, we may 
 thank Heaven for the advautaa:e and use it for the leo-iti- 
 
6 
 
 mate purposes of trade. Put to convert it into a wjeapon 
 for compelling foreign States to pursue a certain line of 
 policy not agreeable to tliem ; to threaten certain conse- 
 quences if tliey refuse ; to say to England: ISTo recognition, 
 no cotton ; no cotton and your mills 'svill stop, your opera- 
 tives will starve, your people will rebel, your Government 
 be in danger of overthrow and your society of anarchy; 
 this would be to use our s-reat commercial advantao;e in an 
 improper, wrongful, unfriendly and hostile manner. We 
 should not conciliate good will, but provoke enmit}'. 
 
 But while our commissioners abroad administer altera- 
 tives or stimulants to European courts, and we at home 
 brandish over the heads of foreign States the scalpel of 
 commercial necessities: while we pursue these different 
 modes of curative treatment with other countries, we are 
 in absolute want of the most important articles of con- 
 sumption among ourselves. We require supplies of arms, 
 ammunition, clothing, blankets, shoes, medicine and other 
 things for our troops and laborers. AYe want, in a word, 
 to exchange cotton for foreign goods. It is essential to the 
 people's comfort and convenience, and to the prosperous 
 management of the war. We need the supplies, and must 
 make the barter. It is a question concerning our own 
 absolute wants, and the necessities of our armies and 
 laborers. Goods are brought to our doors on condition 
 that we supply to the importers an adequate return of 
 cotton. Shall w^e withhold it? Shall we oppose a traffic 
 essential to our well-being, because the Government of the 
 merchant who offers the trade is not yet pleased to say to 
 the world that we are an independent people? We would 
 accept the trade, not with any reference to the advantage 
 of others, but altogether for our own. We need the trade 
 at once; we may take recognition whenever it happens to 
 come. 
 
 What is this recognition to which we attach so much 
 importance as to be ready to beg it on the one hand and 
 coerce it on the other? We are already an independent 
 people; no recognition on the right or on the left will 
 
make us more or less so. Recognition would not add a 
 man to our armies or a dollar to our treasury. It will not 
 involve the necessary opening of our ports ? If the Con- 
 federac}^ were recognized to-morrow, the question of block- 
 ade would remain unchansred. Foreign nations demand 
 now that the blockade shall be efhcient; they would do no 
 more if recognition were announced by France and Eng- 
 land. The question .of recognition has no immediate con- 
 nection with the opt^ning of the ports, and none with the 
 barter of cotton for goods imported in foreign ships. If it 
 were otherwise — if, as soon as the Confederacy was recog- 
 nized, our ports would be thrown open as a necessary con- 
 sequence, there might be some show of reason for holding 
 our cotton in expectation of the event. But since recogni- 
 tion may leave us just where it tinds us, why delay? 
 "What is there in any recognition of so much consequence 
 as to forbid us at once to bu}^ the goods we want for the 
 cotton which we produce to sell. Recognition, at best, 
 could only give us the trade Avhich the foreign merchant 
 offers without it. Why wait for six months or a year for 
 what we may have at once? The trade may involve a risk, 
 but the risk is not ours. 
 
 Trade is ruled by certain general laws. We cannot 
 abrogate or materially change them. If we attempt to 
 place commercial intercourse between States on any un- 
 natural basis at variance with the great principles b}'' 
 Avhich it is governed, we shall fail in the attempt. Cotton 
 is no exception to the rule that applies to all products 
 alike. It is a great interest, but it must obey the laws that 
 regulate commercial exchanges. Any forcible interference 
 with the broad, natural stream of trade is a delicate and 
 dangerous operation, at all times, with any people, for any 
 purpose. The prospects of cotton loans and total non-ex- 
 portation under all circumstances are empirical schemes of 
 doubtful issue, and yet more doubtful principle. They 
 savor of stock-jobbing expedients and the devices of small 
 attorneys accustomed to the tricks and subterfuges of spe- 
 cial pleading, rather than the broad, comprehensive views 
 
8 
 
 of a vigorous and practical statesmanship. It would be 
 better, I believe, if our Government at Richmond would 
 sweep away their projects and expedients, and adopt in 
 their stead a wide, liberal, intelligible, commercial policy. 
 Let us throw open out ports to the commerce of the world, 
 without duties, limitation or restriction of any kind for 
 one full year, with promises of future commercial treaties 
 to all friendly States who shall engage heartil}' in the 
 trade. Let us try the virtues of free trade, of which we 
 have been so long talking — for which we severed the 
 L^nion, but on which we have resolutely turned our backs 
 heretofore in our new Confederacy. We clamored for it 
 until we could command it, and then forgot all about it. 
 Away with the speculations of experiment mongers, and 
 give us the measures of men and statesmen. Give us free 
 trade, and we care not a sixpence for the formal bow of 
 recognition from foreign nations. They may make it at 
 their leisure. It may be an important thing for gentlemen 
 expecting foreign appointments ; it is worth little else. 
 But if never so valuable, and I desired it never so much, I 
 would seek it in the mode suggested, as the readiest and 
 most certain way to obtain it. 
 
 There is no reason, then, against the exchange in our 
 ports of cotton for foreign goods. Our great object is to 
 open our ports to general trade. The barter proposed 
 would serve the purpose to a certain extent. It would 
 tend to bring about the recognition which is considered so 
 important. Above all, we want supplies of merchandise, 
 and must have them. To obtain them, we must furnish 
 an adequate quantity of cotton. To this mode, therefore, 
 of exporting cotton, there can be no sufficient objection. 
 
 No. II. 
 I have endeavored, in a former number, to show that the 
 foreign merchant, importing a cargo of merchandise into a 
 Southern port, should be allowed to export a cargo of cot- 
 
9 
 
 ton in return — that sucli a traffic should be encouraged as 
 beneficial and necessary. But if the foreign trader is per- 
 mitted to bring us goods and take away cotton, shall we 
 debar the enterprising merchant at home from the same 
 privilege ? Shall we refuse to our citizens what we con- 
 cede to strangers ? If the home merchant is adventurous 
 enough to bring us goods from France or England, shall 
 we hamper and embarrass his enterprise ? Shall we not 
 rather applaud and assist it? There can be but one answer 
 to the question. We must rejoice at his success and en- 
 deavor to promote it. To do otherwise would be unjust to 
 him and impolitic for the country. In the American Rev- 
 olution the enterprise of the merchant sustained the Re- 
 public. We hailed the arrival of the Bermuda, lately, with 
 exultation. It was a triumph, a victory over the enemy. 
 Shall we cripple her enterprise by refusing a cargo of 
 cotton ? 
 
 There is yet another class of cases in the export of cot- 
 ton, a class in which no goods are brought to our ports ; 
 but the foreign merchant comes with coin instead of mer- 
 chandise. For many years a trade of growing importance 
 has been carried on by Spanish vessels in Southern ports. 
 These vessels take cargoes of goods from Barcelona to 
 Cuba, sell their cargoes and proceed to New Orleans, Sa- 
 vannah or Charleston, with the amount of their sales in 
 doul)loons, to purchase cotton for their manufacturers at 
 home. They would prefer to bring us the sugar, coffee 
 and molasses of Cuba, but thej' have been prevented by 
 our laws. They bring their gold, therefore. Shall we 
 refuse it? Shall we withhold the cotton for which alone 
 they come, and for which their doubloons are brought? 
 It may be said, the}' will soon export for other parties. 
 They will export the Avhole cotton crop. Suppose they do. 
 They will only convince us that, place the cotton export in 
 any position we please, the power of cotton will be very 
 much the same. We need not wrangle about this or that 
 arrangement, the result, in every case, will be nearly equal. 
 Sui)pose that the Spanish trade of coin for cotton should 
 
10 
 
 grow to tlie magnitude suggested, and that it carried away 
 our cotton for all Europe. The Spaniard must then bring 
 us the coin of all Europe. He must gather it from all 
 nations and send it to our ports. We should monopolize 
 the specie of the world. The movement of coin would be 
 like the tracks of cattle at the cave's mouth of Virsril's 
 robber — all coming in and none going out. It would dis- 
 turb the commercial balances of all nations. We should 
 be masters of their fortunes. The only remedy for the 
 evil on their part would be to bring their goods to our 
 ports to regain a portion of their coin. The operation 
 would be a little more circuitous, but the end would be the 
 same. It would ensure open ports quite as certainly as 
 any other mode of proceeding, and that, too, with no 
 shadow of attempt by the Confederate States to establish 
 what might be deemed a coercive polic}' by other nations. 
 It should be our care to avoid such a policy for many 
 reasons. Among others, because it is problematical, after 
 all, whether we can coerce foreign nations into particular 
 measures by keeping our cotton in our barns. It may be 
 so, but who can say that it must or will be so ? There is 
 no man, Secretary or President, whose departure from his 
 place would leave a moment's gap in the world's existence. 
 I doubt if there be an interest that may not be stricken 
 from tlie catalogue of human pursuits with equal, or nearly 
 equal indiiference to the future. American cotton is a 
 great object in the world's eye, and the phrase " Cotton is 
 King," has been repeated so often that we attach to it the 
 power imputed of old to an incantation, and indulge in 
 vague, and, perhaps, extravagant notions of its efficacy. 
 Yet, a hundred years ago, the world was prosperous and 
 happy without American cotton, and it is possible that it 
 may be prosperous and happy without it a hundred j-ears 
 hence. Whatever the cotton power may be, it needs, like 
 every other human advantage, to be temperatel}^ and dis- 
 creetly managed. Let us indulge in no rash or unneces- 
 sary experiments on its strength. Lot us provoke no 
 needless hostility by using it to settle questions that tmist he 
 
11 
 
 decided hy the usages solely of international lair. We sliould 
 rather husband its energies carefullj, and not expose it to 
 forced competitions without necessity. Let us not forget 
 that if cotton is king over the world, it is equall}^ king- 
 over ourselves, and governs our fortunes as well as the for- 
 tunes of the rest of mankind. It rules abroad by one ne- 
 cessity, and at home b}' another. If in other countries 
 they are compelled to buy it, in our own we arc equally 
 obliged to sell it. Who w'ould cultivate cotton to lock it 
 up only in his warehouse ? 
 
 It has been objected to the export of cotton in any way ; 
 that, if exported at all, it would find its way to the enemy's 
 ports. But it is impossible to provide against every con- 
 tingency and possibility of trade. You canyot stop all the 
 currents and eddies of commerce, any more than you cau 
 arrest the flow and dam up the outlets of the great West- 
 ern river. An army of coast police and all the dexterity 
 of custom house detectives, could not prevent smuggling 
 between France and England. It is not to be supposed for 
 a moment that the whole commercial policy of the South 
 is to be settled or modified by so small an event as the pos- 
 sible arrival of a lot of cotton, by a circuitous route, in 
 Boston or JSTew York. That would be to repeat the extrav- 
 agance of the Witch in ^Esop, who stopped by her spells 
 the sun and moon in their courses to protect her little dog 
 from a threatened danger. The possible damage is too 
 small for consideration. Are we to arrest the great flood 
 of commercial enterprise for so trivial a possibility ? 
 
 To guard against the danger of cotton finding its way to 
 the enemy, and to provide exchanges of trade for foreign 
 goods, it has been suggested to export rice, sugar, tobacco, 
 naval stores, without restriction, while we keep our cotton 
 at home. An}' sv>ch discriminating policy in the export of 
 our agricultural productions would be ruinous and abso- 
 lutely inadmissible, as I Avill hereafter show. If the possi- 
 ble arrival of a parcel of cotton in the enemy's ports is a 
 suflicieut reason for shutting it up in our barns, the reason 
 will apply with equal force to all other productions. Can 
 
12 
 
 any man believe that rice, sugar, tobacco, naval stores, 
 will fail to find their way to the jSTorthcrn States, if suf- 
 fered to be freely exported ? Are we not already informed 
 that naval stores sent to ISTova Scotia from North Carolina, 
 are regularly transshipped from Halifax to New York. 
 They are quite as indispensable to the shipping interest, as 
 cotton is to the manufacturer. Every Southern product 
 will find its way to Northern ports as certainly as cotton. 
 If to avoid this contingency we refuse to export cotton, we 
 must ecpially refuse to export ever^'thing else. We must 
 take up the Japanese system of no trade whatever, just 
 when the people of Japan have become wise enough to lay 
 it aside. 
 
 It has been urged that the question of non-exportation of 
 cotton is already settled by general consent, and should 
 not, therefore, be re-opened. The circulars of factors are 
 appealed to as evidence of the fact. I deny the whole 
 statement. The circulars can have no such meaning if 
 confined to their legitimate purpose. If they had, they 
 would prove nothing. The true object of the circulars was 
 to advise planters to refrain from sending their cotton to 
 the sea-ports as they have been accustomed to do. If it 
 were sent as usual, large stocks would accumulate in com- 
 paratively exposed places, and invite assault and plunder 
 from the enemy. On this point the fiictor could [)roperly 
 speak. It concerns him personally. The accumulated 
 stocks would be under his care and keeping. In this 
 matter he was a fitting adviser of the planter. But he is 
 not the planter's guide in political aft'airs. On the broad 
 question of non-exportation for reasons of State, the factors 
 would as little think of issuing circulars of advice as they 
 would on the comparative merits of two candidates for the 
 Presidency. I acquit them of any such purpose or desire. 
 But if it were otherwise, and all the factors in the country 
 intended to ofter their advice where it would have been 
 out of place, their circulars would go a very little way to 
 prove that the great cotton-growing community were ready 
 to be advised. They may, to a man, be of an opposite 
 
13 
 
 opinion, and willing to exchange their cotton for specie 
 or goods, the circulars to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 What do the planters and the Government mean hy the 
 Cotton Loan? Does not the Loan contemplate a sale? A 
 sale implies a purchaser. Who are to be the purchasers? 
 Is the Government to buy — and thus become a huge cotton 
 broker in defiance of all the maxims of political economy 
 hitherto received among nations — or did the planters, in 
 lending their cotton, count upon a sale of it to foreign 
 nations? Without this as a component part of the scheme, 
 the whole plan would be impracticable. 
 
 ^0. III. 
 
 I ha^e treated the question of non-exportation of cotton 
 as a voluntary arrangement on the part of the people. In 
 this view of the subject, there is no reason to believe that 
 the cotton planters would be opposed to an exchange of 
 cotton for goods brought to our ports in foreign ships. 
 There is as little cause for concluding that they would 
 refuse to sell their crops for specie, introduced in the same 
 wa}'. If the reverse be true, and total non-exportation is 
 to be the established policy of the South, the policy must 
 not be partial ; it must include all our productions. To 
 suppose that the cotton planter will consent to keep his 
 produce is his barn, while everything else is freely export- 
 ed, is to suppose him a simpleton. Why should he keep 
 it? Cotton is the most eligible article of export. It will 
 be sought for most generally. It is not a jot more certain 
 to find its way into the enemy's ports than naval stores, 
 rice, sugar or tobacco. If the cotton crop is to be retained, 
 to enforce recognition by foreign States, whj' not retain 
 every other production for the same purpose? Other pro- 
 ducts are as necessary as cotton to the world's well-being, 
 or nearly so. The fieets of the enemy are at this moment 
 fitted out with the naval stores procured from North Caro- 
 lina. Everything or nothing should be the principle of 
 
14 
 
 the voluntarj system of non-exportation. If attempted in 
 any other form it must faiL It wouki be an injnstiee and 
 wrong. If the cotton ph^nter submits to a discrimination 
 of any kind against his own great staple, it would be 
 fatuity, not patriotism. lie would deserve a cap and bells, 
 not the civic crown of public virtue. 
 
 But the question of export and discrimination presents 
 another view of the subject — a view involving a thousand 
 evils and dangers to the whole country. It has been sug- 
 gested that the arrangement shall be no longer voluntary; 
 that an embargo shall be imposed on cotton exclusively, by 
 the Confederate Government. The proposition has been 
 discussed at Richmond already. It may be resumed in a 
 few days. Against any suck measure, against any suck 
 one-sided exertion of unautkorized power, I protest witk 
 all tke strengtk and earnestness of a tkorougk conviction 
 of its disastrous consequences. I protest against *t as a 
 policy unjust and dangerous, offensive to neutrals abroad, 
 partial and ruinous at kome. Suppose it to be once estab- 
 lisked, will it not scatter tke seeds of discontent and dissen- 
 sion inevitably among tke various agricultural interests of 
 the Soutkern States? To tkink otkerwise would betray a 
 disreo-ard or foro-etfulness of tke strongest traits of our 
 common nature. Reflect, for a moment, kow tke scheme 
 would operate; how it must operate among men jealous of 
 their rights and interests. The producers of rice, sugar, 
 tobacco, naval stores, will sell their productions at good 
 prices, at prices advanced for the very reasons that these 
 products, in the absence of cotton, will be the only articles 
 of exchange for foreign goods. They will have a com- 
 mand of money. The cotton grower will have none. In 
 the depressed state of the mailcet for lands, negroes, 
 houses, the producers alone of exported articles will be 
 able to buy. They will buy at reduced prices. The cot- 
 ton planter can purchase nothing. He must dispose of 
 something to pay his taxes and defray his current ex- 
 penses, lie may be obliged to sell to his more fortunate 
 neighbor houses, farm, negroes. The makers of rice, 
 
15 
 
 sugar, tobacco, naval stores, may buy tbe cotton of tlie 
 cotton planter for a small amount comparatively, and keep 
 it in their warehouses for a rise in prices. They may pur- 
 chase the cotton-negro for half his value, the cotton-farm 
 for a great deal less. This would be the necessary result 
 of the policy proposed. It would be idle to say that to 
 reason in this manner is to sow dissension among dilierent 
 interests. It is the proposed embargo that will sow dis- 
 sension. We cannot escape the evnl consequences of a bad 
 measure by shutting our eyes to them, if we shut our eyes 
 never so closely. It is certain that an embargo on cotton 
 exclusively cannot be tolerated by the cotton planter. It 
 is quite as certain that no planter whatever, of any kind, 
 would advocate a one-sided measure to the prejudice of his 
 neighbors, such as this would be. 
 
 But suppose an impossibility — suppose that all parties 
 were agreed to adopt an embargo on cotton, where would 
 the Confederate Government get the right to impose it? 
 The mere assent of the people, even if unanimously given, 
 can't impart it. The Constitution must confer it, or it is 
 not within the powers of the Government. It is proposed 
 to lay an embargo on the great product of the South, in 
 order to enforce a recognition of the Confederacy by foreign 
 States. Point out the article in our Southern Constitution 
 that gives any such power, for any such purpose. There is 
 none. It would be usurpation as gross as any perpetrated 
 by Lincoln's Government. It would assume over the 
 property of the citizen what the suspension of habeas corpus 
 asserts over his person — a power not authorized by the 
 Constitution, limited by the discretion only of the Govern- 
 ment, directed to the same pretended object, the necessities 
 of the State and the public benefit. Are we preparing to 
 imitate the proceedings and endorse the despotic maxims 
 of the Government at Washington — to sail with them 
 under the roving colors of State expediency, for the rob- 
 bery of civil and political rights? Under what color of 
 right is this to be done ? 
 
 The Government at Washington has been accustomed to 
 
16 
 
 claim the power to do what it pleased under the plea of 
 advancing" " the general welfare." They picked out a 
 phrase from the preamble of the Constitution and made it 
 cover more ground than the whole Constitution besides. 
 Its articles and sections give certain specified powers, but 
 the words which empower the Government " to promote 
 the general welfare," bestows all power whatever. To pro- 
 mote the general welfare is to do everything that the dis- 
 cretion of the Government may judge to be fit and proper. 
 Under this phrase, it gave away the public lands, dug 
 canals, made roads, distributed bounties to fishermen 
 directly, and indirectly to cotton spinners, diggers of coal, 
 makers of salt, publishers of books, forgers of iron, to 
 everybody, in short, of the Northern States who had influ- 
 ence enough to command a dozen votes at a party election. 
 Under the power to make war, it made roads. It passed 
 laws of embargo and non-intercourse, and destroj^ed all 
 commerce, under the pretence of regulating commercial 
 intercourse with foreign nations. But, with a deep con- 
 viction of the abuses perpetrated under this doctrine and 
 practice, the Southern Confederacy has excluded the phrase 
 altogether. It has been solemnly condemned as the parent 
 of lies, and thrust out from the new Constitution disgraced 
 and branded. On what new peg are our politicians de- 
 signing to hang their vague, loose glosses and interpreta- 
 tions, in reference to their delegated powers ? We ask in 
 vain. We are not permitted to know. Our sessions of 
 Congress are all secret. The concealment which may have 
 been expedient in the early part only of their proceedings, 
 seems to have grown into a settled s^tem. The people 
 are shut out from all knowledge of the sayings and doings 
 of their representatives. The continuation of this secret 
 session sj^stem is becoming an abuse, and deserves the de- 
 nunciation of the people. It destroys all responsibility. 
 The members of Congress may be as trustworthy as any 
 one, but no one is to be trusted in perpetual secret session. 
 I would as readily confide in a Venetian Council of ten, or 
 an English Star Chamber, or a Spanish Inquisition, as in a 
 
17 
 
 Congress setting under the safe coucoalment of lock and 
 key. Until this system of secrecy is abandoned, \<-e shall 
 not he able to understand on what new pretext our repre- 
 sentatives may claim the power to do what the Constitu- 
 tion confers no right of doing. Their old plea has been 
 taken away. The people have refused to impose on their 
 agents tlic burthen of promoting the "general welfare" at 
 their discretion. What device will our politicians next 
 contrive as a substitute for a false pretence so convenient 
 to the Lincoln Government; so proliiic of all sorts of vil- 
 lainous abuses, and so thoroughly condemned and re[)U- 
 diated bj^ the Southern Convention? 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 I have said, in my last number, that the pretence set up 
 by the old Government of doing what it pleased to pro- 
 mote "the general welflire" has been condemned, in the 
 new, as a fountain of shams and falsehoods; a stalking 
 horse for every seliish schemer who may be hunting his 
 own petty interests at the public expense. I have asked 
 what fresh contrivance for assuming powers not delegated 
 by the people is to be put together in the secret sessions of 
 the Confederate Congress. If our representatives lay an 
 embargo on cotton, they will inform us at their leisure on 
 what article of the Constitution they rely for thus interfer- 
 ing with the industrial pursuits of their constituents. In 
 the meantime, I venture the conjecture that we shall be 
 told they are consulting and deciding with the purest 
 intentions for the public good, the benefit of the country, 
 the necessities of the State. There is no mistaking the 
 road of those who are seeking to enlarge the powers of 
 Government. "We may trace them as the hound tracks 
 the deer. Every usurpation ever attempted in ancient or 
 niodern times has been for the public good, for the State's 
 advancement or security. Only give the politician this 
 footing to stand upon, and he will move the political world 
 2 
 
18 
 
 at his pleasure. But what is this public good or State 
 necessity but the old evil, the exorcised fiend, returning in 
 another form? What is it but the "general welfare" in a 
 new dress? I deny that the good of the country requires, 
 or is consistent with, a departure from the fundamental 
 maxims of civil and political libert3\ These maxims with 
 us are a rigidly strict construction of delegated power and 
 the constant responsibility of the public servant. There 
 can be no responsibility in secret sessions. The proceed- 
 ings of Congress must be open to the public eye. There is 
 no other guarantee for the honesty of the representative. 
 If he seeks to evade it, he should be marked for distrust. 
 "Without open sessions, the representative will become a 
 subservient tool to the dispenser of official loaves and 
 fishes. Without strict construction, the Constitution, like 
 that of the United States, will be a worthless piece of 
 waste paper, the sport of politicians and lawyers, who will 
 infer any power they wish from any article in the instru- 
 ment. 
 
 It seems to be the fate of the great cotton interest of the 
 country to be forever the sport of Government, used and 
 perverted by adverse interests and political parties. The 
 prominent evil of the South has been heretofore, for years 
 past, this unauthorized intermeddling of Government with 
 her great commercial staple. What was the whole tariff' 
 system of the United States, but an indirect and unjustifi- 
 able interposition of Congressional legislation between the 
 cotton-grower and his customers? The legitimate current 
 of trade was forced aside by law to enable New England to 
 establish her cotton manufactures. It was all for the 
 public good before as it is at present. It is now, to coerce 
 a recognition of the country's independence by foreign 
 nations; it was then, to coerce our independence of for- 
 eign nations, financially, by a system of domestic manu- 
 factures. The regular trade of the cotton-grower was 
 embarrassed and injured for this purpose. A drain on the 
 prosperity of the South succeeded. Southern progress 
 was retarded. We were fast becoming mere appendages 
 
19 
 
 of the I^ortliern States, Yet they impeded only the course 
 of the cotton trade abroad; our Government embargo 
 would stop it altogether. The Northern manufacturers 
 may have desired to do the same thing, but they were not 
 bold or strong enough to attempt the experiment. It may 
 remain for the Southern Confederacy to say to the cotton 
 planter, you shall not sell your produce at all. Eveiy 
 other farmer may export his crop, but yours must remain 
 in your barns. AVe have no power delegated to us by the 
 Constitution to order this, it is true, but there are impor- 
 tant reasons of State for it, and abundant passages in the 
 Constitution from which we can infer it. The Govern- 
 ment of the United States construed the power to make 
 roads out of the war-making j^ower, and the right to arrest 
 all commercial intercourse with the world and establish 
 monopolies at home, from the right to regulate trade. 
 Can we follow a more illustrious example ? 
 
 But if the politician is allowed to meddle with the 
 cotton crop for one political reason, how long will it be 
 before another and another arises? If the Confederate 
 Government uses cotton for enforcing recognition, why not 
 for enforcing the removal of the blockade? ^Tiy not for 
 obtaining aid of men, money, arms and ammunition? "We 
 seem to think it can do anything. If this war is to be 
 fought with cotton, why not other wars ? "Wliat is to be the 
 future position of the cotton planter ? Is his crop to be a 
 sort of public property, and he an operative for the general 
 benefit? Is he to be the perpetual sport of politicians and 
 parties? The whole scheme is at variance with the rights 
 of the citizen and the plainest principles of political econ- 
 omy. It belongs to times and States when laws were 
 passed to prohibit the export of wool and of money; when 
 commerce was encouraged by tying its hands and feet. 
 This policy has been long since abandoned by enlightened 
 nations. Let us not resume it. Let us have no discrimi- 
 nations, either of exports or taxes. The Government has 
 no power to make them, and if it had it could never exer- 
 cise the power without injustice and general disaster. 
 
20 
 
 I liave endeavored to estal)lish these propositions : 
 
 I^irstly. The export of cotton hv collusion between the 
 enemj' and neutrals, hj vessels arriving in. ballast, or in 
 any way, should be universally denounced and opposed. 
 
 Secondly. The importation of foreign goods brought to 
 our ports by foreign vessels, deserves all the encourage- 
 ment we can give it by return cargoes of the produce they 
 require. 
 
 Thirdly. The similar import of goods by our own mer- 
 chants should be sustained b}' a similar supply of cotton, 
 and at least equal approbation. 
 
 Fourthly. Foreign vessels, bringing specie for cotton, 
 like the Spanish vessels from Cuba, should be also fur- 
 nished wnth cargoes. 
 
 Fifthly. Discriminations in the non-exportation policy 
 are of dangerous tendency. It should embrace all pro- 
 ducts alike. 
 
 Sixthly. If any such policy be established, it must be 
 voluntary. The Confederate Government has no consti- 
 tutional power to intermeddle by laying embargoes for 
 political purposes. It would be a usurpation of power, 
 and produce discord and dissension. 
 
 I need not say, and say it for greater caution only, 
 that the question of supplying return cargoes of cotton to 
 vessels bringing goods or specie, is not to be confounded 
 with the question of sending the crop, as usual, to our sea- 
 ports. It may be kept in Columbia, Augusta, or on the 
 plantations, and be quite accessible enough for all commer- 
 cial purposes. Let it be brought to the coast only when 
 required hy the immediate calls of trade. 
 
 I have tried to treat the subject temperately. It is an 
 occasion that requires mutual forbearance. We all seek 
 truth, and truth only. I will engage in no controversy, but 
 content myself with thus stating, without urging, my opin- 
 ions. 
 
pH8.5