Northern sectionalism.
The signs of the outbreaking of sectional sentiments at the
North are increasing of late.
Not long ago we had a lively demonstration from the
Northwestern press touching some plans of
Massachusetts for keeping her citizens out of the war, and making all the money she could by Government contracts.
The shrewd fanatic at the head of the Executive department of the
Bay State coolly suggested to the Legislature that
Massachusetts had furnished about as many men for the field as could be expected of her; that those now at home were needed to conduct the manufactories so indispensable to the army — its clothing and its arming — and that the
Federal Government ought therefore to let her off. This manæuvre excited the ire of the
Northwest, and her press descanted upon it most freely and severely.
The cunning and cupidity of
Massachusetts were re-enlisted in no very select or polite language.
She was charged with the most self h motives and the most unscrupulous arts.
She was represented as making everything out of the war, while the
Northwest did the ghting, and was reduced almost to ruin in all her interests by the struggle.
The truth of the allegations added to their bitterness, and it was plain that Puritanism was provoking an enemy in the
Northwest that was not loth to join issue with it.
There have been many signs of this sectionalism — this impatience of the predominance of puritanism and fanaticism in the federal Government.
But the latest is one which occurred in the
House of
Representative of
Washington the other day.
Mr. of
Kentucky, moved the abolition of the fishing bounties.
This raised the whole of
New England, and there was a marry time.
We have already published the debate.
Mr. P. charged that
New England monopolized everything.
Out of twelve senators
New England had
fourteen chairman of committees, and with this example It was easy to see how the country was taxed for her benefit ! He said it was as just to tax the pigs of
Arkansas, or the power mills of
Illinois, as that the
West should be taxed to pay these fishing bounties.
The debate became personal, and
Mr. Powell was called a friend to traitors by
Mr. Chandler, of
Michigan, (a native of
New England)--
Mr. P. charged him with falsehood, and each declared he had no respect for the other.--It was at this juncture that
Saulsbury, of
Del., with admirable irony, (for such, no doubt, it was,) "appealed to the
Senators, that as sons of common sires (very common!) and as brothers, they should, in the present unhappy state of affairs in which the country found itself, act as became the dignity of American Senators !" Capital !
After the pleasant debate thus aroused by assailing
New England's interest, the vote was taken, and the motion to repeal the bounties failed by a tie vote--19 to 19 ! This is certainly most remarkable.
When the
South was in the
Union, and paid most of the taxes, the
West thought nothing of these bounties to the
New England fisheries, and would not help to repeal them.
But now that the
South is out and the burthen falls on the agricultural
West, that West demands their repeal.
Well, they ought in justice to be repealed, but it would not be an unmerited punishment to hold the
West a few years to the task of paying these bounties while groaning under the war — the war waged by
New England, and into which the
West permitted itself to be drawn.
By and by we shall see more and yet stronger signs of impatience of the
Yankee yoke in the
Northwest.
There is no community of interest between the
Yankees proper and the
Western people, and of course no real community of feeling and sentiment.
