Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
August 28, 1832
Richmond Enquirer
Richmond, Richmond County, Virginia
What is this article about?
The editorial refutes Mr. McDuffie's argument that cotton and rice producers in the South pay over half of federal revenues via duties, equivalent to 40 bags of cotton per 100, deeming it an erroneous and ingenious claim that misleads many, and promises a future detailed exposure of the error.
Clipping
OCR Quality
98%
Excellent
Full Text
THE 40 BAG ARGUMENT!
If we thought with Mr. McDuffie, that the producer paid the duty, and not the consumer—and that the planter pays 40 bags of his cotton, out of 100, towards the duty—and that " more than one half of the federal revenues were paid" by the raisers of cotton and rice, "the exclusive productions of much less than one-fifth part of the federal population"— we should be the first to raise up our indignant hands against this monstrous system of injustice. It would be intolerable—and it should be resisted by the South at every extremity. But, we are firmly convinced, that Mr. McD. has fallen into as great an error upon this point, as upon the cash and credit duties. His argument, however, is ingenious. It has deceived many an honest and intelligent man—and on every account deserves to be refuted. We shall seize the first convenient opportunity to lay an article before our readers, which will expose the error.
If we thought with Mr. McDuffie, that the producer paid the duty, and not the consumer—and that the planter pays 40 bags of his cotton, out of 100, towards the duty—and that " more than one half of the federal revenues were paid" by the raisers of cotton and rice, "the exclusive productions of much less than one-fifth part of the federal population"— we should be the first to raise up our indignant hands against this monstrous system of injustice. It would be intolerable—and it should be resisted by the South at every extremity. But, we are firmly convinced, that Mr. McD. has fallen into as great an error upon this point, as upon the cash and credit duties. His argument, however, is ingenious. It has deceived many an honest and intelligent man—and on every account deserves to be refuted. We shall seize the first convenient opportunity to lay an article before our readers, which will expose the error.
What sub-type of article is it?
Economic Policy
Taxation
What keywords are associated?
Tariff Duties
Cotton Producers
Federal Revenues
Economic Injustice
Southern Resistance
What entities or persons were involved?
Mr. Mcduffie
Southern Planters
Federal Government
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Refutation Of Mcduffie's 40 Bag Tariff Argument
Stance / Tone
Critical Of Mcduffie's Economic Claims, Promising Refutation
Key Figures
Mr. Mcduffie
Southern Planters
Federal Government
Key Arguments
Producer Does Not Pay The Duty, But The Consumer
Mcduffie's Claim That Planters Pay 40 Bags Of Cotton Out Of 100 In Duties Is Erroneous
Cotton And Rice Raisers Do Not Pay More Than Half Of Federal Revenues
The Argument Is Ingenious But Deceptive And Needs Refutation