Richmond Palladium

For the Richmond Palladium.

The Gathering of Democracy at Centreville, Nov. 5th, 1842.

We had the pleasure to attend this meeting and was treated with forbearance. It numbered from three to five hundred Democrats and Whigs,—about a third of the number, we were informed, were Whigs. Nothing occurred to mar the harmony of the meeting, and it had in it, like all other promised mass assemblies, many very respectable citizens; but it is not our object to comment upon appearances, but to discuss facts and principles as set forth by the selected orator of that meeting, as the creed of the party, and as the base of democratic action for the future. The Hon. Mr. Weller, of Ohio, was the honored spokesman of the party upon this occasion, and, passing by his denunciations of the Whigs, and his eulogies upon the much-abused and misrepresented Sub-Treasury, as he was pleased to describe it, which had fallen by ‘felon hands,’ we propose to notice two prominent subjects which he discussed with his accustomed ardor and ability,—we mean the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands among the States, and a Protective Tariff, each of which he denounced as anti-Democratic and hostile to the interests of the American people.

Let us for a minute examine these two subjects. It is the theory of our republican government, that all the elements of which it is composed, (the people,) are equal and have an equal stake in all its powers, its benefits, and disadvantages, (if any,) without any regard to property; then, this being correct, the people have a common and equal interest in the National domain, no matter how acquired, unless that equality of interest has been compromised or destroyed by the manner of acquiring that domain, which it is presumed will not be contended for; then, in the avails of that domain, administered equally to the people as they own it, when paid into the National Treasury in lieu of taxes, as proposed by Mr. Weller and his party? We say nay—because the natural revenues are, or should be, levied upon the wealth and luxury of the country, and when the avails of the public land, are paid into the treasury as revenue, they are paid in lieu of that which should be levied, and which otherwise would be levied, upon wealth and luxury, and that, too, at the expense of that portion of community who are not liable to be taxed for wealth or luxuries, because they have neither; and yet the interest of such in the public domain are equal to that of any others. And this is to be wrested from them by this process, and paid into the public treasury, in lieu of tax which should and would, by a tariff of duties, be levied upon that wealth and luxury in which they have no share, but which their arm protects in times of danger in the enjoyment of others. It is a robbery upon them and upon their children, who are entitled to be educated from that fund. Why all this zeal upon the part of democratic leaders and expounders, as they call themselves, for the proceeds of the public lands to take this direction? The only reason which I have heard assigned, I would suppose was very unsatisfactory to those who have no wealth and who indulge in no luxuries, that is, it will enable Congress to place very low duties upon the imported necessaries of life, that is Tea and Coffee, (and Wine and Brandy might be added, for both are useless foreign luxuries,) are principally consumed in the circles of wealth, and not in the cottage or thrifty farm-house. Then tell me not that the farmer of the West, whether Whig or Democrat, will surrender his interest or that of his children in the public domain simply that idleness, wealth, and luxury may riot in cheapness upon the products of foreign climes, foreign labor, and foreign soils. Every consideration which looks to the future forbids it, and for the present I'll dismiss the thought.

Protection of American industry by impost duties, was the other topic discussed by Mr. Weller. He was willing that sufficient revenue for the support of the government should be collected by imposts, but not one cent to be levied for protection! No, he spurned and denounced the idea of American industry wanting protection, or the idea of Congress exercising such unconstitutional power. This he put forth as a fundamental doctrine of the party with which he acts, and which now aspires to the control and management of the government.

Before assent is given to this, what we deem a anti-American policy and the helm of State yielded to Mr. Weller and his political friends, we hope the American people, whose interests are more involved than Mr. Weller's, will reflect upon the consequences. We must not tax the products of Europe one cent for the protection of any American interest. No, says he, they do not need it—they should stand alone and compete with the pauper labor of other countries, or fall and be abandoned; this, he says, is Democracy. Let us, being specially interested, enquire for a moment, how this doctrine effects and how it will effect our Western interests? We are a bread and meat producing people; these articles are our great and only staples. Is the industry which produces them now properly and adequately rewarded, or do we see a hope spring from Mr. Weller's theory, that they will at any future time fare better? We say, nay. We ask, emphatically, what has brought upon those staples of ours the extreme depression under which they now labor, but the withdrawal of protection from the manufacturing establishments of the United States, joined with the policy of other manufacturing countries. Heretofore, when our manufacturing industry was protected against the competition of foreign labor, they were the consumers of our bread and meat to a large amount, which greatly diminished our surplus for the cotton field market—the consequence of which was we got good prices from each.

As the price of an article depends upon the demand for it and the relation the supply bears to that demand, the consequence is, that by withdrawing protection from the manufacturing establishments of the United States, they cease to operate—their labor is dispersed, and driven generally to agricultural pursuits; they abandon an occupation in which they cannot compete with the products of the same wages of European establishments,—they no longer buy our bread and meat, and instead of consuming the products of our labor, as heretofore, they become laborers in the same occupation with us. They make bread and meat for their own use and a surplus to meet and compete with us in the South, and this they add to the supply in that market, besides turning all of ours, which they had heretofore consumed, into the same market: so that the article is now scarcely worth carriage. This is the obvious effect which the withdrawal of protection from American manufactories has produced upon the bread and meat producing States.

The economy of all enlightened countries, protects the production of bread and meat at home by excluding all foreign articles from their markets, till their people come nigh the point of starvation. This has a double effect in Europe: first, it encourages production at home, and, secondly, it confines our market for those articles to the cotton and sugar producing sections; throwing upon them such a superabundance above the real demand, that the articles produce comparatively nothing—this, whilst it enslaves and impoverishes us who produce the bread and meat that Europe does not buy, nevertheless stimulates, increases, and cheapens the production of cotton which Europe does buy, and which Europe wants at the lowest possible price: which will, in the general, depend upon the price of bread and meat in the cotton producing regions.

If this is democracy, it is most certainly not American democracy. It is just such as is now, and always has been, taught to us by the English lords and commons—by the manufacturers and money changers of Great Britain.
French chambers, and by the German manufacturers for their interest; and if it is to prevail, we may fold our arms and set down quietly, and content ourselves with the reflection that the poverty we voluntarily bring upon ourselves is wealth to Europe, and that every manufacturing establishment we break down in America, builds up one in some other country.

For ourselves, we spurn and repudiate the idea of those being democratic principles; they are not common to the body of the party here. The leaders alone are guilty of this political idolatry to the Southern creed, which contemplates slavery as a blessing, and liberty as a curse to the great body of the people.

PROTECTION.