-------------------------------------------------------

Massachusetts, $166 60  | Indiana,              $69 12
Rhode-Island,   164 61  | Wisconsin,             63 41
Connecticut,    156 05  | Mississippi,           67 50
California,     149 60  | Iowa,                  65 47
New-Jersey,     120 82  | Louisiana,             65 30
New-Hampshire,  117 17  | Tennessee,             63 10
New-York,       112 00  | Georgia,               61 45
Pennsylvania,    99 80  | Virginia,              59 42
Vermont,         96 62  | South-Carolina,        56 91
Illinois,        89 94  | Alabama,               55 72
Missouri,        88 66  | Florida                54 77
Delaware,        85 27  | Arkansas,              52 04
Maryland,        83 85  | District of Columbia,  52 00
Ohio,            75 82  |
Michigan,        72 64  | Texas,                 51 13
Kentucky,        71 82  | North-Carolina,        49 38
Maine,           71 11  |
-------------------------------------------------------
>
It is seen by this table that the income, or product
of the non-slaveholding population South, mainly disconnected
as it is with mechanical industry, is reduced to the
extreme level of bare subsistence, while the population
of the States which have introduced diversified industry
stand on a high scale of production.  Contrast
Massachusetts and South-Carolina, the two leading States
in the promulgation of opposite theories.  These
two States have often been censured for the contumelious
manner in which they have sometimes sought to repel
each other’s arguments.  The one is in favor
of ‘free trade.’  The other says: 
’No State can flourish to much extent without
diversified industry.’  The one says: 
’Open every thing to free competition.’ 
The other replies:  ’Are you aware that the
interest on manufacturing capital in Europe is much
lower; that skilled labor there is more abundant;
and that it would dash to the ground most of the manufacturing
we have started into growth under protection through
our revenue laws?’ ‘Let it be so,’
says Carolina; ’what right exists to adopt a
national policy that does not equally benefit all sections?’
‘The very object of the policy,’ replies
Massachusetts, ’is, that it should benefit
all sections; and the most desirable object of all,
in the eye of beneficence, would be, that it should
benefit the laboring white population of the cotton
States, as well as others.’  ‘But,’
says Carolina, ’this diversified industry can
not be introduced, to much extent, where slavery exists.’ 
‘That is an argument by implication,’
says Massachusetts, ’that you more prize slavery
than you do the interests and welfare of the bulk
of your white population.’  ’Who set
you up to be a judge on the question of the welfare
of any part of the population South?’ says Carolina. 
‘I assume to judge for myself,’ replies
Massachusetts, ’as to that national policy which
is designed to affect beneficially the twenty-seven
millions of people who are obliged to obtain subsistence
through personal industry; theirs is the great cause
of white humanity in its shirt-sleeves; and it behooves
the National Government to take care of that cause,
and to foster it; and not to submit to the narrow
selfishness of a few slaveholders.’