In England, the need for high revenue prompted conversely higher taxes and revenue to secure them
concomitant with restrictions on innovation in manufacture. Reciting a litany of various restrictions on
trade and enterprise, it is suggested that American government policy had become one of diminishing,
toward abolition of such restrictions on trade in reciprocal fashion:

	"This effect is always produced to a certain extent, by the collection of duties 
	on imports, as the home producer is not subject to the same duties, and may,
	of course, sell his commodities so much higher than he could do were there
	no such restraint upon exchanges with foreigners." (114)

The impact of such taxes is said to be always less where the imposition is "for the purpose of protecting
the home producer." While it constitutes an actually heavier tax, it is not to support the government, but:

	" ... is paid to the home producer, and constitutes a bounty, from the payment
	of which the consumer derives no benefit whatsoever ..." (115)

except in the long-term impact of rising levels of living standards. Even at its highest, it was never
prohibitive, but was said to be ever "in a continual course of reduction." But even at the high water mark,
the real value of consumption of foreign imports was nearly twice as high here as it was in Britain. (116)
But by no means is Carey's protection limited to the tariff issue. He argues for internal improvement
projects, most notably roads (117) which increase population and its density along with wealth creation,
and lead to diminution of the proportional cost involved in supporting them. He thus attaches to the notion
of protection the entire scope of governmental activity he terms public energy which is directed toward
economic development and growth. For him, protection is the whole range of cultivating efforts. In a
section pertaining to credit, he not only describes its impact on increasing production, productivity of
labor, increased diversification, and rising "proportion retained by the labourer" (118) through the saving
of labor, but places the need for a general system of credit squarely at the feet of government, sighting the
Bank of America as an exemplar of the success of the system in both its engendering of industry and
comparatively almost minuscule loss rate. (119) When Carey returns to the matter of support of
government in Chapter Nine, he fashions a comparative evaluation of various instruments of taxation,
setting (at that quite early date) on the decided preference of the income tax, by which in support of
government, "every man contributes in the ratio of his interest." (120) Perhaps more importantly for the
present consideration is his statement offered in that general context that :

	" ... it is obvious that it is to the labourer of the highest importance  that government
	should be administered in that way which tends to permit the most rapid growth of
	capital." (121)

Governmental expenditure has to be constrained for it is wasted, comparatively speaking, since:

	"The same capital left in the pockets of the producers, would build rail roads  and 
	canals, facilitating the acquisition of the means of subsistence and enjoyment." (122)
 
Carey was not alone in such assertions, whether as to the role of public energy generally or more
specifically in terms of the utility of protective tariffs. The same argumentation permeates, for example,
Daniel Raymond's THOUGHTS ON POLITICAL ECONOMY. In part two of that tract, Raymond speaks
of Protecting Duties as enacted toward "the encouragement of the industry of the nation."(123) Asserting
"that the public interests are paramount to individual interests,"(124) he directs the argument in those
terms specifically to counter the free trade arguments of Adam Smith.

     Green might find that chapter particularly informative regarding some of his expressions concerning
Carey. And while it is beyond the scope of this essay to consider the point in any substantive manner,
there are found identical assertions in A MANUAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY written by Erasmus
Peshine Smith, and in Frederich List's NATIONAL SYSTEM OF  POLITICAL ECONOMY. It does
seem almost as though Carey at times becomes fixated upon the protective tariff mechanism, or nearly so,
although clearly not to the exclusion  of other 'protective' characteristics generally of the American System
program. Admittedly, he does present quite a strong case for his position on duties, and it may be that
such legislative enactment was a concrete measure which could be undertaken toward the ends he sought
and therefore were deserving of such emphasis. Carey even tried to convince the South that protective
tariffs were in their long-term interest, that even though such duties would effectively end slavery, that the
South generally and individuals of the slavocracy would enjoy much better livelihood and higher
standards of living and wealth as a result. Whether that would have in fact have occurred especially with
any haste given at the time he was presenting the argument on the eve of the Civil War obviously is a
question of little consequence since they were not going to move on it very expeditiously if at all. (125)
Nor is there any way to find out what would have resulted even if he had prevailed. In any event, it
requires a considerable leap of faith to suppose that the Union could have been saved on such terms in
1861 or that any hegemonic Southern grouping could or would have bought it even at all. Green also
proposes that it was Carey's 'fantastic' belief that there was a "relationship between minority-group
prejudice and the tariff," having been accentuated during periods of low tariffs only to fade when there
were high duties.(126). Carey does argue in his ESSAY ON THE RATE OF WAGES, (127) that influxes
in population to create greater consumption markets, thus driving up the rate of wages, at least ultimately.

     Carey published his volume SLAVE TRADE, DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN in 1853. In it, he goes
beyond the question of involuntary servitude in the United States to argue for an end to the larger world
system of  slavery imposed by the imperial policy of Britain and its ilk:

	"To make men free there must be competition for the purchase of their services,
	and the more  competitive the greater must be their value, and that of the men who
	have them to sell." (128)

As in the more agricultural areas there is less such competition for purchasing labor:

	" ... labor has become more valuable, and that labor has become more free, precisely
	as the artisan has been enabled to take his place by the side of the ploughman --
	precisely as labor has become more diversified -- precisely as small towns have 
	arisen in which the producer of food and wool could readily exchange for cloth
	and iron ... and precisely, therefore, as men have acquired the power of associating
	with their fellow-man." (129)

As labor increased, so, too, did return, economic and then political. Thus, it was also the path to
republican institutional validity. He continues:

	"It is desired to abolish the trade in slaves. No such trade could exist were men everywhere
	free; but as they are not so, it has in many countries been deemed necessary to prohibit the
	sale of men from the land, as preliminary to the establishment of freedom." (130)

Shortly thereafter, Carey adds:

	"If, then, we desired to stop the export of negroes from Africa, would not our object be
	effectively and permanently attained could we so raise the value of man in Africa ... ?" (131)

     In order to stop the trading of men as slaves, whether chattel, wage, or whatever, what had to be done
was "to raise the value of labor at home." (132) It had been prevented by conscious efforts to limit access
to machinery of industry, thus guaranteeing cheap labor. But Carey carries the argument even further at
the very conclusion of the book. (133) Industry would raise the value of labor and similarly free women
(who are debased and enslaved) because under prevailing economic situations, women were tied to
degrading labor because they had to assist the family in working due to the 'brute labor' saddled on men.
Whether the argument Carey makes that slavery was unproductive  (134) was beyond question, it is clear
that it was at least less productive than it otherwise could have been. It was on such grounds that Carey
not only opposed slavery but also was less than laudatory of abolitionists. The situation of slaves or the
economy as a whole could, for example, scarcely have improved through such schemes as the infamous
'forty acres and a mule' land redistribution plans (which Lincoln also opposed) near the conclusion of the
Civil War. Green, incidentally, makes much of Carey's connection and influence on Lincoln himself and
certain layers of the Administration, particularly in Treasury. (135) Even though he had participated
actively in support on anti-slavery forces in Kansas, he had somewhat different responses to such actions
as those by John Brown there and at Harper's Ferry. His viewpoint revolved around his harmony of
interest conviction and held abolitionist efforts as ill-directed because they functioned to divide the nation
and thereby undermine the very requisites which would make possible a real end to slavery. It would be
possible to end slavery, but it could not be done by way of political intervention directly. In SLAVE
TRADE, Carey wrote:

	"Neither is it necessary, because there exists 'a higher law' -- a great law of 
	the Creator -- that will effectively extinguish the slave trade ..." (136)
 
     In the words of Arnold Green:

	"This higher law of the Creator is a combination of machinery, diversity of
	employments, and the protective tariff." (137)                             

Carey repeatedly returned to this topic in his editorials for The New York Tribune. The South would only
loose by seceding. The North did not rely on it but the South was dependent on the North. (138) In these
articles, he went so far as to attribute the divisive character of abolition to Stowe's UNCLE TOM'S
CABIN. He seems to have quite convinced that much of the problem of American division was traceable
to the British landed aristocracy as it was to the British system generally. His basic methodology for
handling this threat was once more American System program and protection. In a series of letters to
Schuyler Colfax published under the title HOW TO DEFEAT ENGLAND WITHOUT FIGHTING HER,
(139) he faces this perhaps the most directly, sighting the need for "a great national league' (by which he
meant the harmony of interest) to, as he called it, 'Americanize' the nation.

     Arnold Green is rather critical of Carey regarding the seemingly limited and fixated positions he
espoused on the subjects of protection and slavery. But it would seem that Green's comments are ill-
founded and that he misses the whole point:

	"Nothing better exemplifies the limited range of both his human sympathy
	and intellectual grasp than the stand he took on abolition and slavery, which
	in the minds of most of his contemporaries overshadowed all other issues.
	A succession of Washington politicians pled with him to modify his monolithic
	insistence on the tariff in the very teeth of the rising wind, not on a humanitarian
	basis but on realistic political grounds ... he refused to regard slavery as a political
	fact, but insisted that the British system was creating a far worse slavery. He at one
	and the same time assured his Northern compatriots that the tariff would ultimately
	end slavery, and addressed Southern planters with the plea that only the tariff 
	could  save their institution -- that is, at times he phrased his appeal thus, while
	at other times he assured the Southern planters that the tariff ultimately would end
	slavery but that the planters' economic and political fortunes would thereby improve." (140)

 Allen Salisbury has documented Carey's view on this subject drawing on the writings of E. Peshine
Smith:

	" ... A year ago, we had the Kansas murders on our side. Now, our opponents have 
	the Harper's Ferry riots on theirs, and if we do not act with great caution, we shall
	fail to win the race ... It is my final belief that Messrs. Beecher, Phillips, and others,
	are in this question, the most efficient allies of the pro-slavery power." (141)

     The matter was also addressed by Carey in his open letter to William Cullen Bryant printed in his
MISCELLANEOUS WORKS under the section "The Financial Crisis, Their Causes and Effects" (142):

	" ... In common with Franklin and Adams, Hancock and Hamilton, those men clearly
	saw that it was to the industrial element we were to look for that cement by which our
	people and our States were to be held together. Forgetting all the lessons they had
	taught, we have now so long been following in the direction  indicated by our British
	Free Trade friends -- by those who now see, as was seen before the Revolution, in the
	colonial vassalage -- that already are they congratulating themselves upon the 
	approaching  dissolution of the Union, and the entire re-establishment of British
	influence over this northern portion of the continent. For proof of this, permit me to
	refer you to the following extracts from the Morning Post, now the recognized organ
	of the Palmerstonian government:

	'If the Northern States should separate from the Southern on the question of slavery --     
	one which now so fiercely agitates the public mind in America -- that portion of the
	Grand Trunk Railway which traverses Maine, might at any day be closed to England,
	unless indeed the people of that State, with an eye to commercial profit, should offer
	to annex themselves to Canada. On military as well as commercial grounds it is
	obviously necessary that British North America  should possess on the Atlantic a port
	open at all times of the year -- a port which, whilst the terminus of that railway
                communication  which is destined to do so much for the development and consolidation                        
                of  the wealth and prosperity of British North America, will make England equally in peace                         
                and  war independent  of the United  States. We trust that the question of confederation 
                will be speedily forced upon the attention of Her Majesty's ministers.'

	'The present time is the most propitious for its discussion ... If slavery is to be the nemesis
	of Republican America -- it separation is to take place -- the confederated States of British
	North America, then a strong and compact nation, would virtually hold the balance of power
	on the continent, and lead to the restoration of that influence which, more than eighty years 
	ago, England was supposed to have lost. This object, with the uncertain future of Republican              
                institutions in the United States before us, is a subject worthy of the early and earnest                          
                consideration on the Parliament and people of the mother country.'
	
	Shall these anticipations be realized? That they must be so, unless our commercial policy 
	shall be changed, is as certain as that the light of day will follow the darkness of night. Look
	where we may, discord, decay, and slavery march hand-in-hand with the British free trade
	system -- harmony and freedom, wealth and strength, on the contrary, growing in all those
	countries by which that system is resisted. Such having been, and being now the case, are
	you not, my dear sir, in your steady advocacy of the Carolinian policy among ourselves, 
	doing all that lies in your power toward undoing the work that was done by the men of '76?"

     But it was in regard to another of the giant names of the mid-19th century that I was provided the first
occasion for my own real awareness of Henry Carey -- in his liaison developed with Karl Marx in reading
communication between Marx and Engels and their cohorts in North America. There also seems to have
been considerable contact between the 'Carey School' and Marx's associates in this country. Charles Dana,
himself a collaborator in Carey's Vespers networks, commissioned Marx to write for the Tribune. Marx's
writings spanned the entire decade of the 1850's and his affiliation actually outlasted that of Carey who
left the paper in 1857 over a dispute with Horace Greeley on the question of the tariff.

     While the comments of Marx clearly indicate both where their philosophies converge and the stature of
Carey and his ideas, there is an element or exception registered by Marx which may in fact have stemmed
from a lack of understanding by Marx (although he remained a steadfast ally of Northern efforts through
the Civil War) of the American situation:

	"Carey, the American national economist, has published a new book, SLAVERY	
	AT HOME AND ABROAD. Under 'slavery' are here included all forms of servitude,
	wage slavery, etc. he has sent me his book and has quoted me repeatedly (from the
	Tribe). I told you before that in this man's previously published works the harmony
	of the economic foundations of the bourgeois system was described and all the
	mischief was attributed to superfluous interference by the state. The state was his
	bogey ... The root of all evil is the centralizing effect of big industry. But this 
	centralizing effect is England's fault because she turns herself into the workshop
	of the world and forces all other countries back into the rudest agriculture, divorced 
	from manufacture. For the crimes of England the Ricardo-Malthus theory and 
	especially Ricardo's ground rent are in their turn responsible. The necessary 
	consequences alike of Ricardo's theory and of industrial centralization would be 
	Communism. And in order to avoid all this, to oppose centralization by localization
	and a combination of factories and agriculture all over the country, the final
	recommendation of our ultra-free trader is -- protective tariffs.                                            
                                                                                                                                                                        
	In order to escape the effects of bourgeois industry, for which he makes England
	responsible, he resorts like a true Yankee to hastening this development in America
	by artificial means.

	The only thing of positive interest in his book is the comparison between the former
	English Negro slavery in Jamaica and the Negro slavery in the United States. He shows
	that the main body of Negroes in Jamaica, etc,. always consisted of newly imported 
	barbarians, as under English treatment the Negroes were not only unable to maintain
	their population, but lost two-thirds of the number annually imported; the present
	generation of Negroes in America, on the other hand, is a native product more or less
	Yankeeised, English-speaking, etc., and therefore fit for emancipation.

	Your article on Switzerland was of course a direct attack at the leader in the Tribune 
	and their Carey. I have continued this hidden warfare in a first article on India in which 
	the destruction of the native industry by England is described as revolutionary. This 
	will be very shocking to them. For the rest, the whole rule of Britain in India was 
	swinish, and is to this day."(143)

     In spite of the Marx-Carey association and dialogue of sorts, Marx did manage to elaborate on some
problems he had with Carey's political economy. If there were parallels between their perspectives, Carey
was after all still a capitalist or bourgeois economist. The capitalist system, despite its contributions
acknowledged by Marx, was still the problem for him. Marx has criticized Carey for an alleged failure to
see through "fortuitous distortions of [American capitalist] relationships" which differentiated the New
World experience from that of Europe's "inherited obstacles of the feudal period." The problem for Carey
was the English System, but Marx saw only differences embedded in their separate peculiarities. The
productive relationships remained unchanged. (144) Marx further objects in the GRUNDRISSE to Carey's
viewpoint that:

	"It is a law of nature, for example, that wages should increase with the 
	productivity of labor," (145)



and his theoretical framework of class conflict was obviously quite at odds with Carey's Harmony of
Interest. But Marx's problem with Carey were actually merely Marx's own problems. he may have been
too unfamiliar to appropriately distinguish the British situation from that of America. Marx had a
somewhat different notion of the character of man, as well, as discussed earlier. His determinism is in
sharp contrast to the will prevalent in Carey. For Marx, for whom such freedom could only arise in the
'new socialist man', much of humanity's problem arose in bourgeois society, while for Carey, capitalism
was the real liberator.

     And yet, there are striking similarities. Perhaps not fully recognized by Marx himself, the labor theory
of value he is credited with having uncovered can also be found quite before his time in Hamilton's
REPORT ON MANUFACTURES, certainly a position that Carey qualifies as being in the tradition of. He
clearly shared the concept with Hamilton. Carey and Marx also shared critical views of Adam Smith,
Malthus, and Mill. It might even be suggested that Carey's principle of Association bore striking parallels
with Marx's development of the 'class-for-itself.' Probably the most rudimentary area of convergence
revolves around the idea of 'expanded reproduction' and its development out of what Marx would
characterize a rising ratio of social surplus to constant and variable capital. The fact that we will not find
Carey expressing it in terms of S'/ C + V aside, the similarity is profound and important

     The doctrine of Association is one of the central tenets of the entire system of Carey. In his last book
THE UNITY OF LAW which was published in 1872, he succinctly delineates his idea of progress in
terms of this combination concept:
 
	"Throughout nature, the power of combination is in the direct ratio of the
	individualization of the various parts. The more perfect it becomes, the more
	rapid is the circulation and the greater the force excited. So precisely is it with
	man. The more societary positives and negatives are brought together, and the
	more his power of association, the greater is the tendency toward development
	of his various faculties; the greater becomes his control of the forces of nature,
	and the more perfect his own power for self-direction; mental force thus more
	and more obtaining control over the accumulations of the past. The physically
	weak, and the physically strong, whether male or female, youthful or aged, tend
	more and more to meet on terms of strict equality ..." (146)

However, this theory is not new at that juncture. In the PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY,
Volume II, he wrote:

	"The tendency to association is natural to man. It has its origin in the desire of 
	maintaining and improving his condition. Each feels that he may derive benefit
	from his neighbor, and knows that to enable him to do thus he must grant aid
	in return."(147).

The natural tendency heightens with industry and draws people more tightly together into protective
communities. This protective function, Carey contends, marks the birth of government. The developing
division of labor is the dynamic which motivates societal change. We also find this conceptualization
articulated in THE HARMONY OF INTEREST. Man and society operate under identical laws as does the
physical universe. It is as well a rudimentary formulation in his PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL SCIENCE III.
Near the end of this work, he has constructed a systematic statement of the identity of social and natural
law:

	"That heat is a cause of motion and force -- motion being, in its turn, a cause of
	heat and force:

	That the more heat and motion produced, the greater is the tendency towards 
	acceleration in the motion and the force:

	That the more the heat, the greater is the decomposition of masses, and
	individualization of the particles of which they are composed -- thus
	fitting them for entering into chemical combination with each other:

	That the greater the tendency towards individualization, the more instant
	are the combinations, and the greater the force obtained:

                That the more rapid the motion, the greater the tendency of matter to rise in the
	scale of form -- passing from the rude forms which characterize the inorganic
	world, through those of the vegetable and animal world, and ending in man:

	That, at every stage of progress, there is an extension of the range of law
	to which matter is subjected, accompanied by an increase of the power
	of self-direction -- subordination and freedom keeping steady pace with
	organization:

	That last in the progress of development comes man, the being to whom
	has been given the power to guide and direct himself and nature, too --
	his subjection to all the laws above referred to, being the most complete." (148)

It would seem to be clear that Carey was familiar with not only Oparin perhaps, but most especially
Liebniz, for this is precisely his message in MONADOLOGY. This self-organizing negentropic universe
is the essence of their vision of natural law. And, as Liebniz extends the physical laws to human society
and social order, here Carey is echoing similar notions, which constitute the essential character of his
principle of association, which is the ground out of which government sprouts. It is the basis of his
concept of community. Referring back to his concept of the organic analogy of society and his argument
from it to the public energy function of government as a reflection of that, we have both the general
structure of Carey's natural law, and the basis of his entire political economy, and particularly, protective
tariffs.

     Among the writings of a contemporary and colleague of Carey,  Edgar Allan Poe, are a set of short
stories concerning the exploits of one C. August Dupin, a French detective whom it almost seems Poe may
have intended as a contrapuntal character to Sherlock Holmes. The inductive methodology Dupin
espouses for checkers as opposed to chess as well as for solving crimes and dealing with people and for
scientific endeavor is one Poe makes quite more of in his essay EUREKA. Poe was active in Whig Party
circles and enjoyed publication through the house of Matthew Carey.

     For Henry Carey, too, the only proper social science would have to be grounded in such bases
involving association and induction. While he insisted that it must become more mathematical to
approach classification as true science, deductive reasoning would be inadequate.  It is necessary, Carey
says drawing on Goethe in PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL SCIENCE II (149) to study the "breath of the
spirit" rather than "individual material parts." As the "subject of social science," man, says Carey, is "the
molecule of society."


Continue