hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
United States (United States) 16,340 0 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 6,437 1 Browse Search
France (France) 2,462 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 2,310 0 Browse Search
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) 1,788 0 Browse Search
Europe 1,632 0 Browse Search
New England (United States) 1,606 0 Browse Search
Canada (Canada) 1,474 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 1,468 0 Browse Search
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) 1,404 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing). Search the whole document.

Found 730 total hits in 94 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): entry protection
in many respects it was far different with Great Britain a hundred years ago. She did not then feel have continued, no estimate of the growth of England's wealth would be possible. Practically it wrred, passed in 1846 in apparent harmony with England's newly declared financial policy. At that mthe exhausting effect of the struggle with Great Britain. But the prayer of the people was answerehome than they would have been able to buy in England if the protective duty had not stimulated theeriod of twelve years is shown as follows: England.United States. 1877508,400385,865 1878622,3ejudicial to the trade and manufactures of Great Britain, that it lessens our dependence upon Greatat such advance in wages as there has been in England is referable to another and a palpable cause—o, possibly when Mr. Gladstone was premier of England, public bids were asked to carry the Anglo-Ine English policy of free-trade is urged where England can hold the field against rivals, and that w[48 more...]
Oriental (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): entry protection
he total amount was imported. In 1888, with a population estimated at 63,000,000, the aggregate amount paid for carpets was nearly $60,000,000, and of this large sum less than $1,000,000 was paid for foreign carpets and about half a million for Oriental rugs. Does any free-trader in England believe that the United States, without a protective tariff, could have attained such control of its own carpet manufacture and trade? It will not be unnoticed, in this connection, that under a protective Gladstone was premier of England, public bids were asked to carry the Anglo-Indian mails. A French line offered a lower bid than any English line, but the English government disregarded the French bid and gave the contract to the Peninsular and Oriental line, owned by a well-known English company. Still later, the German Lloyd Company contracted to carry the Anglo-American mails cheaper than any English line offered, and the German company actually began to perform the duty. But Englishmen di
Quebec (Canada) (search for this): entry protection
dy argument of the free-trader is that, if the steamship lines were established, we could not increase our trade because we produce under our protective tariff nothing that can compete in neutral markets with articles of the like kind from England. How, then, can the freetrader explain the fact that a long list of articles manufactured in the United States find ready and large sale in Canada? The Canadian tariff is the same upon English and American goods. Transportation from England to Quebec or Montreal is cheaper than from the manufacturing centres of the United States to the same points. The difference is not great, but it is in favor of the English shipper across the seas, and not of the American shipper by railway. It is for the freetrader to explain why, if the cost of transportation be made the same, the United States cannot compete with England in every country in South America in all the articles of which we sell a larger amount in Canada than England does. Giving h
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): entry protection
the seven years which followed its enactment were beyond precedent the most prosperous and happy. Sectional jealousy and partisan zeal could not endure the great development of manufactures in the North and East which followed the apparently firm establishment of the protective policy. The free-trade leaders of the South believed—at least they persuaded others to believe—that the manufacturing States were prospering at the expense of the planting States. Under the lead of Calhoun, South Carolina rebelled, and President Jackson, who had so strikingly shown his faith in the policy of protection, was not able to resist the excitement and resentment which the free-traders had created in the cotton States. He stood between hostile policies, represented by his two bitterest personal enemies—Clay for protection; Calhoun for free-trade. To support Clay would ruin Jackson politically in the South. He could not sustain Calhoun, for, aside from his opposition to free-trade, he had cause<
Leedes (United Kingdom) (search for this): entry protection
ugh not in degree, with the advance in the United States, and the advance in both cases was directly due to the firm establishment of protection in this country as a national policy. But it must not be forgotten that American wages are still from 70 per cent. to 100 per cent. higher than British wages. If a policy of free-trade should be adopted in the United States, the reduction of wages which would follow here would promptly lead to a reduction in England. The operatives of Manchester, Leeds, and Sheffield recognize this fact as clearly as do the proprietors who pay the advanced wages, and more clearly than do certain political economists who think the world of commerce and manufactures can be unerringly directed by a theory evolved in a closet without sufficient data, and applied to an inexact science. The zeal of Mr. Gladstone for freetrade reaches its highest point in the declaration that all protection is morally as well as economically bad. He is right in making this hi
Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): entry protection
lish rails had fallen to $88 per ton in New York, the freight paid and the duty unpaid. English manufacturers held the market for the ensuing six years, though the sales at the high prices were limited. In 1870 Congress laid a specific duty of $28 per ton on steel rails. From that time the home market has been held by our own manufacturers, with a steady annual fall in price, as the facilities of production increased, until the summer and autumn of 1889, when steel rails were selling in Pittsburg, Chicago, and London at substantially the same prices. Does any free-trader on either side of the ocean honestly believe that American rails could ever have been furnished as cheaply as English rails, except by the sturdy competition which the highly protective duty of 1870 enabled the American manufacturers to maintain against the foreign manufacturers in the first place, and among American manufacturers themselves in the second place? It is not asserted that during the nineteen years
New England (United States) (search for this): entry protection
pless victim of protection. Both Mr. Gladstone and the American free-trader have, then, the duty of explaining why the agricultural States of the West have grown in wealth during the long period of protection at a more rapid rate than the manufacturing States of the East. The statement of the freetrader can be conclusively answered by referring to the census of the United States for the year 1860, and also for the year 1880: In 1860, eight manufacturing States of the East (the six of New England, together with New York and Pennsylvania) returned an aggregate wealth of $5,123,000,000. Twenty years afterwards, by the census of 1880, the same States returned an aggregate wealth of $16,228,000,000. The rate of increase for the twenty years was slightly more than 216 per cent. Let us see how the agricultural States fared during this period. By the census of 1860, eight agricultural States of the West (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin) r
Walpole (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): entry protection
es in the American colonies interfere with profits made by British merchants. The same body petitioned Parliament that some measures should be provided to prevent the manufacturing of woollen and linen goods in the colonies. Finally Parliament declared that colonial manufacturing was prejudicial to the trade and manufactures of Great Britain. These outrageous sentiments (the colonists characterized them much more severely) were cherished in the time of the glorious Georges, in the era of Walpole and the elder Pitt. I do not mean to imply that Mr. Gladstone's words carry with them an approval, even retrospectively, of this course towards the colonies, but there is a remarkable similarity to the old policy in the fundamental idea that causes him in 1889 to suggest that Americans produce too much cloth and too much iron, and should turn their labor to low-priced cereals and low-priced cotton. Are we not justified in concluding that Mr. Gladstone's theory of free-trade, in all its
South America (search for this): entry protection
The Canadian tariff is the same upon English and American goods. Transportation from England to Quebec or Montreal is cheaper than from the manufacturing centres of the United States to the same points. The difference is not great, but it is in favor of the English shipper across the seas, and not of the American shipper by railway. It is for the freetrader to explain why, if the cost of transportation be made the same, the United States cannot compete with England in every country in South America in all the articles of which we sell a larger amount in Canada than England does. Giving heed to the cry of the professional free-trader in America, Mr. Gladstone feels sure that, though the protected manufacturers in the United States may flourish and prosper, they do so at the expense of the farmer, who is in every conceivable form, according to the free-trade dictum, the helpless victim of protection. Both Mr. Gladstone and the American free-trader have, then, the duty of explaini
Australia (Australia) (search for this): entry protection
re, without the allowance of any modifying condition, great or small, the English economist declares it to be advantageous for the United States, for Brazil, for Australia; in short, for all countries with which England can establish trade relations. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for Mr. Gladstone to find any principlehad reason to feel supremely content. She found under her own flag, on the shores of every ocean, a host of consumers whom no man might number. She had Canada, Australia, and India with open ports and free markets for all her fabrics; and, more than all these combined, she found the United States suddenly and seriously lowering hhe four years preceding the outbreak of the Civil War, the American people would have grown commercially dependent upon her in a greater degree than is Canada or Australia today. But England was dealing with an intelligence equal to her own. The American people had, by repeated experience, learned that the periods of depression
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...