9 it is no invention of any of your high-flying Abolitionists of the present day; it has been received by grave and plodding English and German doctors, who read, and pondered, and smoked, and annotated, long before such a lusus natural as an American abolitionist was ever heard of. The gentleman has, of course, de- termined the complexion of the great-captain of antiquity, the Carthaginian Hannibal, and knows how far it resembled that of the Lybians and Nubians whom he led to twenty years’ triumphs over the sharp-beaked eagles of Rome. He sees how to dispose of the phenomenon of the French mulatto, Alejandre Dumas, that miracle of prolific genius. He can show that no stress is to be laid on such a case as that of the American Frederick Douglas, now of Rochester, New York, ten years ago a wretched slave, picking up scraps of leaves of the Bible in the gutters of Baltimore to teach himself to read, then working three years on the wharves at New Bedford, without a day’s schooling, I presume, in his life; yet now speaking and writing the English language with a force and an eloquence which, I hesitate not to say, would do no discredit to any gentleman on this floor. But I do not discuss the question whether the negro inferiority is to be traced to a congenital incapacity, or to the depression and low culture of many generations. It is a great problem. I have not time for it. It is too intricate and vast. Nor, determined either way, would it have any material connection with the main question I have in hand, or directly bear on any measures now in the contemplation of this committee. I have been but stepping aside a little way in the gentleman’s track. Again: He appealed to the “failure of the emancipation of the negroes in the West Indies,” (page 8.) The gentleman gets his views of this from the English merchants, who try the question of success or failure by the amount ■ of their importations of coffee and sugar from the islands. [Mr. Clingman was understood to say that he had his information from' those who had personally visited the islands.] The statements of visiters, Mr. Chairman, are conflicting. I have statements different from what have reached the gentleman, on which I am disposed to rely. I am very anxious to see the recent parliamentary reports, and have sent for them for the purpose of being aided to clear up the contradictions. I have before me a table showing the amount of sugar exported from the British West India islands in five successive years. It is as Follows: In 1841 - - - - In 1842 - - - - In 1843 - - - - In 1844 - - - - In 1845 - - - - 125,295 hogsheads, 135,910 do. 141,100 do. 138,150 do. 157,200 do. - - - 12,225 tierces. - 15,985 do. - 13,640 do. - 16,395 do. - 20,075 do. Showing, on the whole, a constant and very gratifying increase of the exportation. But, supposing it were otherwise, the gentleman, like myself, I believe, is a friend to the protective system', and if so, he knows the worth of the home market. Mr. Jefferson pointed it out long ago, and showed how, on account of the saving of the cost of transportation, and for divers other good and weighty reasons, it was better than the foreign. And if part of the sugar and coffee which used to be sent abroad is now consumed within the islands, which is the case to a large extent, in consequence of the negroes being now in a condition to indulge in such luxuries, the decrease in the amount exported is little to the purpose. And, supposing even that less of these commodities were raised, the negroes being disposed to turn more, of their industry to other productions—to raising yams, bananas, plantains, pine apples, any thing—for the market, or for their families, what then? The better the farmer can suit himself with his farming, the more rent will he be willing to pay; and with the rise of rents, of course comes the increase of the value of land, and of the wealth of the proprietors. Is it not so? And is that failure, even in an economical point of view?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=