Historians Edit Hamilton
In an effort to provide evidence to support their theory that the tariff controversy was only a pretext employed by the South to lay the foundations for a defense of slavery, historians have misrepresented statements in an 1830 letter of James Hamilton, Jr., a South Carolina lawyer and politician. Hamilton had written a letter to John Taylor and others that was published in the Charleston Mercury newspaper on September 14, 1830.
Hamilton had served as Mayor (Intendant) of Charleston, as a state legislator, and as a U.S. Congressman. He was elected Governor of South Carolina and served from 1830 to 1832.
On November 19, 1832, in Columbia, delegates to the Convention of the People of South Carolina elected James Hamilton, Jr., to preside over the convention. On November 24th, Hamilton, as President of the Convention and as delegate from St. Peters Election District, signed the Ordinance "To Nullify certain Acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be Laws Laying Duties and Imposts on the Importation of Foreign Commodities."
The words of such a central figure would naturally be accorded great weight. But historians have "doctored" Hamilton's words by cutting out certain words relating to the tariff in an effort to make it seem that the man was citing slavery as the underlying cause. Hamilton was clearly concerned only about the tariff. That was an important element in his political career. The full text of Hamilton's letter makes it clear that the tariff, not slavery, was the sole concern.
One historian's quotation of Hamilton is shown below, side-by-side with Hamilton's original text. In Hamilton's full version, the historian's omitted words are set out in boldface font.
The Historian's Quotation of Hamilton
I have always looked upon the present contest with the government, on the part of the Southern States, as a battle at the outposts, by which, if we succeeded in repulsing the enemy, the citadel would be safe. The same doctrines 'of the general welfare' which enable the general government to . . . appropriate the common treasure to make roads and canals . . . would authorize the federal government to erect the peaceful standard of servile revolt, . . . to give their bounties for Emancipation here, and transportation to Liberia afterwards.
What Hamilton Actually Wrote
I have always looked to the present contest with the government, on the part of the Southern States, as a battle at the out-posts, by which, if we succeeded in repulsing the enemy, the citadel would be safe. The same doctrines "of the general welfare" which enable the general government to tax our industry, for the benefit of the industry of other sections of this Union, and to appropriate the common treasure to make roads and canals for them , would authorize the federal government to erect the peaceful standard of servile revolt, by establishing colonization offices in our State, to give their bounties for emancipation here, and transportation to Liberia afterwards. This last question follows our giving up the battle on the other two, as inevitably as light flows from the sun. But, say some of our countrymen, who are constantly suffering under severe fits of moderation, and uncommon gleams of illumination, when this arises, then indeed are we prepared for resistance-even to disunion-without recollecting that of all questions, this is the last on which the South ought to desire to make battle; that however we might be united at home, we should have few confederates abroad-whereas on the subjects of free trade and constitutional rights, we should have allies throughout the civilized world. For disunion I am not either prepared or willing.
The Significance of the Omissions
The historian omitted the phrase, "to tax our industry, for the benefit of the industry of other sections of this Union, . . .." He has omitted the words that specifically identify the cause of the North-South antagonism, the "opposite relation with respect to taxation and appropriations" of which Calhoun had complained.
After the phrase, "to appropriate the common treasure to make roads and canals," the historian omitted the words "for them." This was another southern complaint--that the federally subsidized internal improvements were to a great extent located in the North. In the relatively flat geography of the South, navigable waterways penetrated large distances inland. Canals were not as necessary as in the North and the southern rivers served to some extent as a substitute for roads which, in the flat South, were perhaps more easily constructed. Heavy seawalls were necessary to protect Great Lakes harbors from large waves driven by north winds, gathering in size and force over a hundred miles of open water. There was much less a requirement for those in the South. Omitting the phrase hides yet another clue to the "opposite relation with respect to taxation and appropriation."
The historian omitted the phrase, "by establishing colonization offices in our State." The establishment of federal colonization offices in the South would be financed by an increase in the tariff that would ultimately decrease cotton revenues. Furthermore, it would bleed away the labor force for growing cotton. Moreover, the omitted phrase would direct attention to the disconcerting fact that the North was intent on conducting the Negroes out of the country rather than freeing them in place. The phrase produces a cognitive dissonance with twentieth-century standards of morality, a dissonance that the historian avoided, perhaps, to make his argument seem more plausible to the modern reader.
Hamilton did not worry that the federal government would emancipate their slaves. He knew that slavery was protected by the U.S. Constitution. A Constitutional amendment would be needed before emancipation. He was worried that the federal government would spend the "common treasure" on such things as colonization offices, subsidies to slave owners for emancipation and subsidies for ocean transportation of the freedmen to Liberia. To finance these things by the tariff, the tariff rate must be increased and cotton prices must necessarily fall by a multiplied amount.
The historian omitted the sentence: "This last question follows our giving up the battle on the other two, as inevitably as light flows from the sun." The "last question" Hamilton referred to is the one touching upon slavery. The "other two" questions are (1) "to tax our industry, for the benefit of the industry of other sections of this Union, and (2) "to appropriate the common treasure to make roads and canals for them." Hamilton had in mind the following chain of events. Heavy taxation and appropriations would inevitably drive the South down into depression. With their foreign cotton markets devastated, slave labor would become an expensive surplus. Slaves would be disposed of by federally subsidized emancipation and transportation to Liberia.
The historian omitted Hamilton's statement "that of all questions, this is the last on which the South ought to desire to make battle; that however we might be united at home, we should have few confederates abroad. . .." Hamilton's advice flies in the face of the historian's argument that the slavery issue was at the root of it all.
The whole context of South Carolina politics at this time was annoyance at the sadly misnamed "American System" with its high protective tariffs and spending on internal improvements. The meeting of September 20, 1830 was called in Columbia, South Carolina, to discuss the desirability of a statewide convention to deal with that problem. Hamilton was invited to the meeting, but declined to go for family reasons. In lieu of his attendance, he wrote that letter to the men of the organizing committee.
In his first words on the principal subject of the letter, Hamilton wrote, "I have come to the conclusion that the public mind of South Carolina will never be composed either to a resistance or even to (an unhappy) submission to that compound of fraud and injustice miscalled the "American System," without an appeal from what the legislature has done to what a Convention may do." Hamilton directed his readers to the free trade issue as the one on which they should stand for battle. Slavery was a poor issue on which to do battle, "whereas on the subjects of free trade and constitutional rights, we should have allies throughout the civilized world." This, the historian omitted to report, perhaps because it appears inconsistent with his interpretation that free trade was not the issue.
Hamilton's speech in Congress on the tariff on April 6, 1824, was memorable. If Adam Smith, the venerable economic philosopher, could have risen from his grave, said Hamilton, "he would have met here the very dogmas of that school of restriction and monopoly which it had been the chief business of his valuable life to refute and overthrow."
Immediately after Hamilton finished speaking, the House voted on Representative Lot Clark's motion to reduce the duty on bar iron from $1.12 to ninety cents a ton. The motion passed by a vote of 99 to 90.
Robert Tinkler has written a biography of Hamilton. Tinkler, however, quotes only the "citadel" sentence from Hamilton's letter and adopts the slavery interpretation of the other historians.
James Hamilton to John Taylor and others, Charleston Mercury, September 14, 1830.