But who, in 1785, could foresee the rapid depravity which was to render the close of that century a disgrace to the history of man?  Who could have imagined that the two most distinguished in the rank of nations, for science and civilization, would have suddenly descended from that honorable eminence, and setting at defiance all those moral laws established by the Author of Nature between nation and nation, as between man and man, would cover earth and sea with robberies and piracies, merely because strong enough to do it with temporal impunity, and that under this disbandment of nations from social order, we should have been despoiled of a thousand ships, and have thousands of our citizens reduced to Algerine slavery.  Yet all this has taken place.  The British interdicted to our vessels all harbors of the globe, without having first proceeded to some one of hers, there paid a tribute proportioned to the cargo, and obtained her license to proceed to the port of destination.  The French declared them to be lawful prize if they had touched at the port, or been visited by a ship of the enemy nation.  Thus were we completely excluded from the ocean.  Compare this state of things with that of ’85, and say whether an opinion founded in the circumstances of that day, can be fairly applied to those of the present.  We have experienced, what we did not then believe, that there exist both profligacy and power enough to exclude us from the field of interchange with other nations.  That to be independent for the comforts of life, we must fabricate them ourselves.  We must now place the manufacturer by the side of the agriculturalist.  The former question is suppressed, or rather assumes a new form.  The grand inquiry now is, Shall we make our own comforts, or go without them at the will of a foreign nation?  He, therefore, who is now against domestic manufacture, must be for reducing us either to dependence on that foreign nation, or to be clothed in skins, and to live like wild beasts in dens and caverns.  I am not one of these.  Experience has taught me that manufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort; and if those who quote me as of a different opinion, will keep pace with me in purchasing nothing foreign, where an equivalent of domestic fabric can be obtained, without regard to difference of price, it will not be our fault if we do not soon have a supply at home equal to our demand, and wrest that weapon of distress from the hand which has so long wantonly wielded it.  If it shall be proposed to go beyond our own supply, the question of ’85 will then recur, Will our surplus labor be then more beneficially employed, in the culture of the earth, or in the fabrications of art?  We have time yet for consideration, before that question will press upon us; and the axiom to be applied will depend on the circumstances which shall then exist.  For in so complicated a science as political economy, no one axiom can be laid down as wise and expedient for all times and circumstances.  Inattention to this is what has called for this explanation, which reflection would have rendered unnecessary with the candid, while nothing will do it with those who use the former opinion only as a stalking-horse to cover their disloyal propensities to keep us in eternal vassalage to a foreign and unfriendly people.