, flax, hemp,
etc., and be fed by our farmers' provisions. Draw forth our iron from
our own mountains, and we shall not drain our country in the purchase of
the foreign. . . . . We propose, sir, to supply our own wants from our own
resources, by the means which God and Nature have placed in our
hands. . . . . But here is a question of sectional interest, which elicits
unfriendly feelings and determined hostility to the bill. . . . . The
cotton, rice, tobacco, and indigo-growers of the Southern States, claim
to be deeply affected and injured by this system. . . . . Let us
inquire if the Southern planter does not demand what, in fact, he denies
to others. And now, what does he request? That the North and West should
buy--what? Not their cotton, tobacco, etc., for that we do already, to
the utmost of our ability to consume, or pay, or vend to others; and
that is to an immense amount, greatly exceeding what they purchase of
us. But they insist that we should buy English wool, wrought into cloth,
that they may pay for it with their cotton; that we should buy Russia
iron, that they may sell their cotton; that we should buy Holland gin
and linen, that they may sell their tobacco. In fine, that we should not
grow wool, and dig and smelt the iron of the country; for, if we did,
they could not sell their cotton." (On another occasion, he said:)
"Gentlemen say they _will_ oppose every part of the bill. They will,
therefore, move to strike out every part of it. And, on every such
motion, we shall hear repeated, as we have done already, the same
objections: that it will ruin trade and commerce; that it will destroy
the revenue, and prostrate the navy; that it will enhance the prices of
articles of the first necessity, and thus be taxing the poor; and that
it will destroy the cotton market, _and stop the future growth of
cotton_."

Mr. Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, said: "No nation can be perfectly
independent which depends upon foreign countries for its supply of iron.
It is an article equally necessary in peace and in war. Without a
plentiful supply of it, we cannot provide for the common defense. Can we
so soon have forgotten the lesson which experience taught us during the
late war with Great Britain? Our foreign supply was then cut off, and we
could not manufacture in sufficient quantities for the increased
domestic demand. The price of the article became extravagant, and both
the Government and the agriculturist were compelled to