Article Type: Review
Journal Title: "Critic of Literature, Art, Science, and the Drama"
Issue: 1:8 (1844:May) p 167
2 pgs / Monthly Publication / Published in London
http://britishperiodicals.chadwyck.com/articles/results.do?querytype=articles
Page 167
Article: "By giving to the West-India islands a monopoly of the home market for their sugars we, in fact, make the consumers in Great Britain pay somewhere about three millions annually for that commodity more than they would pay for it were they permitted to resort to other markets."
My Own: So are they saying the boycott isn't worth it? Do they want us to forfeit what is right so we can afford things? Since when did that matter?
Page 167
Article: "by taking the sugars of other countries we should be encouraging slavery. To this it is replied, that in practice we do buy slave-grown sugar though not for the use of our own poor, but to send it abroad, partly for the use of the very emancipated negroes for whore sake it is pretended that the monopoly is maintained, and that we take slave-grown cotton and coffee in abundance, without any such scruples on conscience."
My Own: Are they making up reasons to justify the fact that they don't want to pay as much? And to use slave-grown coffee and cotton too? It's just absurd that they would exploit the abolition process just to save money.
Page 168
Article: "Mr. Laird...proposes to abolish the duties on colonial sugar, imposing merely a nominal one"
My Own: This makes so much more sense. If the tax is flat, people will be encouraged to buy products that are not slave-grown.
Page 168
Article: "the price of sugar at home would fall"
My Own: What? Is this supposed to encourage them to not purchase slave-grown sugar? It's about time!
No comments:
Post a Comment