1. One historian described postwar imports from the United Kingdom as “… very heavy. The long pent-up stream of English merchandise may be said to have flooded the world at the close of the Napoleonic Wars.” See Taussig, Frank, The Tariff History of the United States, 8th ed. (New York, 1931), 20Google Scholar.

2. Bolt, William K., Tariff Wars and the Politics of Jacksonian America (Nashville, 2017), 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Edwards, Richard C., “Economic Sophistication in Nineteenth-Century Congressional Tariff Debates,” Journal of Economic History 30, no. 4 (1970): 804CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Estimates of the number of unemployed in Philadelphia in late 1819 ran from 12,000 to 20,000, out of a workforce of approximately 64,000, with the remainder receiving wages that had been reduced by 80 percent. See Browning, Andrew H., The Panic of 1819: The First Great Depression (Columbia, 2019), 197–98Google Scholar.

4. On Mathew Carey’s role in the protectionist movement, see Rowe, Kenneth W., Mathew Carey: A Study in American Economic Development (Baltimore, 1933)Google Scholar; Meardon, Stephen, “‘A Reciprocity of Advantages’: Carey, Hamilton and the American Protective Doctrine,” Early American Studies 11, no. 3 (Fall 2013): 431–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Huston, James L., “Virtue Besieged: Virtue, Equality and the General Welfare in the Tariff Debates of the 1820s,” Journal of the Early Republic 24, no. 4, (1994): 523–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Matson, Cathy, “Mathew Carey’s Learning Experience: Commerce, Manufacturing, and the Panic of 1819” Early American Studies, 11, no. 3 (Fall 2013): 455–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Bolt, chaps. 1–10; Peart, Daniel, Lobbyists and the Making of U.S. Tariff Policy, 1816–1861 (Baltimore, 2018), chaps. 1–4Google Scholar; Irwin, Douglas A., Clashing Over Commerce: A History of U.S. Trade Policy (Chicago, 2017), 136–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dorfman, Joseph, The Economic Mind in American Civilization, 1606–1865 (New York, 1946–59), 384–86Google Scholar. As early as 1804 Carey had allied himself with fellow Democratic-Republican businessmen who informally became known as the Quids. See Schultz, Ronald The Republic of Labor: Philadelphia Artisans and the Politics of Class, 1720–1830 (New York, 1993), 183Google Scholar. Rowe emphasizes that while Carey himself had no financial investment in what is typically considered manufacturing, he was decidedly sympathetic to manufacturers’ cause. See Rowe, 54, 53. Scholars of American print culture argue that American publishers of Carey’s era often considered their work to be a form of manufacturing. See Remer, Rosalind Printers and Men of Capital: Philadelphia Book Publishers in the New Republic (Philadelphia, 1996), 65Google Scholar; James N. Green “The Rise of Book Publishing,” in A History of the Book in America: An Extensive Republic—Print, Culture, and Society in the New Nation, 1790–1840, eds. Robert A. Gross and Mary Kelley (Chapel Hill, 2010), 75, 79; Sher, Richard B., The Enlightenment and the Book: Scottish Authors and Their Publishers in Eighteenth-Century Britain, Ireland and America (Chicago, 2006), 507, 519Google Scholar. Meardon emphasizes that Carey was a protectionist before he emigrated to the United States. See his “Reciprocity of Advantages,” 434. Carey himself wrote that only after taking note of the distressed conditions of 1819 did he turn to the study of political economy, admitting that he “had never devoted three days” to it before then. See Matson, “Learning Experience,” 475. Peart notes that the Panic of 1819 and the suffering that it caused led Carey to describe the tariff issue as moving from “a mere manufacturing question” to “an altogether … national one.” See his Lobbyists, 31.

5. On Carey’s economic ideas and their lack of originality, as well as his use of statistics, see Rowe, 54, 52, and Huston, , “Virtue Besieged,” 542. Martin Ohman discusses Carey’s use of statistics in greater detail in “The Statistical Turn in Early American Political Economy,” Early American Studies 11, no. 3 (2013): 487–514Google Scholar.

6. Andrew Shankman, “Neither Infinite Wretchedness nor Positive Good: Mathew Carey and Henry Clay on Political Economy and Slavery during the Long 1820s,” in Contesting Slavery: The Politics of Bondage and Freedom in the New American Nation, ed. John Craig Hammond and Mathew Mason (Charlottesville, 2011), 247–54; Shankman, “Capitalism, Slavery, and the New Epoch: Mathew Carey’s 1819,” in Slavery’s Capitalism: A New History of American Economic Development, ed. Sven Beckert and Seth Rockman (Philadelphia, 2016), 243–49.

7. Todd, Janet, Sensibility: An Introduction (London, 1986), 7Google Scholar. Work mentioning Carey’s appeal to the more tender feelings, and sentimentalism itself, without exploring its connections to the tariff, includes Angelo Repousis in “‘The Cause of the Greeks’: Philadelphia and the Greek War for Independence, 1821–1828,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 123, 4 (1999): 337, 354–55; and Meardon, 440.

8. In this regard, Carol Nackenoff and Julie Novkov describe “reformers and activists” outside the federal government as state-builders. See their “Introduction: Statebuilding in the Progressive Era: A Continuing Dilemma in American Political Development,” in Statebuilding from the Margins: Between Reconstruction and the New Deal, ed. Carol Nackenoff and Julie Novkov (Philadelphia, 2014), 7.

9. Ibid.

10. By the time Mathew Carey began to write about the tariff, the sentimental traditional was already well established in America. See Wood, Gordon, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York, 1992)Google Scholar; Knott, Sarah, Sensibility and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill, 2009)Google Scholar; Bloch, Ruth, “Utopianism, Sentimentalism, and Liberal Culture in America,” Intellectual History Newsletter 24 (2002)Google Scholar; Barker-Benfield, G. J., “The Origins of Anglo-American Sensibility,” in Charity, Philanthropy and Civility in American History, ed. Friedman, Lawrence J. and McGarvie, Mark D. (Cambridge, 2004), 72–73Google Scholar; Eustace, Nicole, Passion Is the Gale: Emotion, Power, and the Coming of the American Revolution (Chapel Hill, 2008)Google Scholar.

11. David Hume famously maintained that moral judgments were “more properly felt than judg’d.” See his A Treatise of Human Nature, L. A. Selby-Bigge, ed. bk. 2, sec. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888), 470. Adam Smith identified compassion as an emotion. See his The Theory of Moral Sentiments (London: Printed for A. Millar [etc.] 1759), 1. On the Scots’ moral philosophers’ emphasis on human happiness, see Broadie, Alexander, The Scottish Enlightenment: The Historical Age of the Historical Nation (Edinburgh, 2007), 99Google Scholar; and Phillipson, Nicholas, “The Scottish Enlightenment,” in The Enlightenment in National Context, ed. Porter, Roy and Teich, Mikulas (Cambridge, 1981), 30, 35–36Google Scholar. John Mullan describes sentimental fiction’s use of a “language of feeling,” in Sentiment and Sociability: The Language of Feeling in the Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1988), 2. Markman Ellis locates “the force of the sentimental mode” in its ability to make readers feel emotions in his Politics of Sensibility: Race, Gender, and Commerce in the Sentimental Novel (Cambridge, 1996), 2. For more discussion of the common identification of sensibility with the emotions in this period, see Elizabeth White Nelson, Market Sentiments: Middle-Class Culture in Nineteenth-Century America (Washington, DC, 2004), 6. Susan Pearson describes the sentimental style as seeking to provoke a release of emotion and bring about “emotional cultivation”; see her “Rights of the Defenseless: Animals, Children, and Sentimental Liberalism in Nineteenth-Century America” (Phd diss., University of North Carolina, 2004), ProQuest (3156193), 28, and The Rights of the Defenseless: Protecting Animals and Children in Gilded Age America (Chicago, 2011), 9.

12. Ellis, 63; Barker-Benfield, 72; Todd, 5.

13. Berry, Christopher J., Idea of Commercial Society in the Scottish Enlightenment (Edinburgh, 2013), 76, 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and The Social Theory of the Scottish Enlightenment (Edinburgh, 1997), 7; Ellis, 19; Knott, 323, 200; Barker-Benfield, 76–77; Pearson (2004), 13–14; Mullan, 145; Merish, Lori, Sentimental Materialism: Gender, Commodity Culture, and Nineteenth-Century American Literature (Durham, 2000), 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. Tariff proponents, in this and later periods, assumed that the policy would lead to higher wages for American workers. Their political opponents, and many subsequent scholars, expressed considerable skepticism about this contention. On the later development of the wages issue in the tariff debate, see Mangold, George B., “The Labor Argument in the American Protective Tariff Discussion,” Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, no. 246 (1906): passimGoogle Scholar; Foner, Eric, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (New York, 1970), 20–21Google Scholar; Taussig, 65–66; and Bolt, 149–50. Judith Goldstein summarizes academic skepticism about the argument by stating that the idea that “protectionism assured higher wages for labor than does free or modified free trade” is “a proposition we now know to be false.” See her Ideas, Interests, and American Trade Policy (Ithaca, 1993), 24.

15. Ellis, 99–125. Mathew Carey was not alone in using sentimental concepts and language in works that promoted state-building. In 1823, Daniel Raymond argued that government “should be like a good shepherd, who supports and nourishes the weak and feeble ones in his flock, until they gain sufficient strength to take their chance with the strong, and does not suffer them to be trampled on, and crushed to the earth, by the powerful.” See The Elements of Political Economy, in Two Parts, 2d ed. (Baltimore, 1823), II:13. Although Raymond supported a high tariff, his major works did not focus specifically on the policy. Although beyond the scope of this article, a comparison of Carey’s and Raymond’s views of the tariff, the state, and their relation to sentimental concepts and language deserves further research.

16. Huston, James, “A Political Response to Industrialism: The Republican Embrace of Protectionist Labor Doctrines,” Journal of American History 70, no. 1 (1983): 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. On Carey’s role in the movement to provide social welfare, see Axinn, June and Levin, Herman, Social Welfare: A History of the American Response to Need, 4th ed. (New York, 1997), 49–50Google Scholar; Trattner, Walter, From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in America, 2d ed. (New York, 1979), 63–64Google Scholar; Katz, Michael, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America (New York, 1986), 6–10Google Scholar; Kimmel, S. D., “Sentimental Police: Struggles for ‘Sound Policy and Economy’ Amidst the Torpor of Philanthropy in Mathew Carey’s Philadelphia,” Early American Studies 3, no. 1 (2005): 166CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. Kimmel, 225–26.

19. Shankman describes Carey’s argument for the tariff as envisioning “a republican version of economic development.” See his “Neither Infinite Wretchedness,” 249.

20. On this period’s transition toward a more liberal political discourse, see Huston, “Virtue Besieged,” 525–26; Brian Balogh, A Government Out of Sight: The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth-Century America (New York), 45; and Watts, Steven The Republic Reborn: War and the Making of Liberal America, 1790–1820 (Baltimore, 1987)Google Scholar.

21. Pearson, The Rights of the Defenseless (2004 and 2011). Other authors have explored how the emergence of federal policies reflected the ideals of compassion and charity, without linking them to the sentimental tradition per se. See Abruzzo, Margaret, Polemical Pain: Slavery, Cruelty, and the Rise of Humanitarianism (Baltimore, 2011)Google Scholar; Clark, Elizabeth B., “‘The Sacred Rights of the Weak’: Pain, Sympathy, and the Culture of Individual Rights in Antebellum America,” Journal of American History 82, no. 2 (1995): 463–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Landis Dauber, Michele, “The Sympathetic State,” Law and History Review 23 (2005): 387–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and The Sympathetic State: Disaster Relief and the Origins of the American Welfare State (Chicago, 2013).

22. Huston, “Virtue Besieged,” 525–26, 540.

23. Direct assistance became commonly known as “outdoor relief” because it offered aid, either in cash or in kind, to individuals living in their own homes. The poorhouse movement, which critiqued and replaced this approach to social welfare provision, demanded that individuals receiving relief reside in a poorhouse administered by a government entity and perform work in exchange for aid received. On this transition, see Katz, 3–57; Axinn and Levin, 51–14; and Trattner, 42–66.

24. On the fundamental emphases of the liberal tradition, see Dorothy Ross, “Liberalism,” in Encyclopedia of American Political History, ed. Jack P. Greene (New York, 1984), 2:753, and Pearson (2011), 13–14.

25. Huston memorably described Carey as “a political antagonist more adept at venting spleen on his opponents, than at concocting economic explanations.” See his “Virtue Besieged,” 542. Mathew Carey’s biographer in the Dictionary of American Biography observes that “he took a joy in vituperation”; see “Carey, Mathew,” Dictionary of American Biography, ed. Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone (New York, 1929), 2:491. Peart’s discussion of the political activities promoting high tariffs in the 1820s documents Carey’s turbulent emotions and intemperate language. See 50, 52, 71–72 for examples. Carey’s irascibility eventually led fellow protectionists to seek to remove him from his state’s delegation to the Harrisburg Convention of 1827. A friend wrote to him to say that “much pains were taken by the Pennsylvania delegation, or most of them, to keep you in the back ground.” After the convention’s end, Carey wrote what Peart describes as a “fiery letter to all those present, complaining about how he had been treated.” He later regretted what he called his “display of a degree of temper which I ought to have controlled [which] exhibited me in a very disadvantageous light to a body of respectable men.” See Peart, 80. For other references to Carey’s temperament in print, see Abruzzo, Margaret, “Apologetics of Harmony: Mathew Carey and the Rhetoric of Religious Liberty,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 134, no. 1 (2010): 9Google Scholar, and Burke, Martin J., “Afterword: Why Should We Listen to Mathew Carey?” Early American Studies 11, no. 3 (2013): 583CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26. Peskin, Lawrence, Manufacturing Revolution: The Intellectual Origins of Early American Industry (Baltimore, 2003), 29Google Scholar; see also Brezis, Elise S., “Mercantilism,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Economic History, ed. Mokyr, Joel (Oxford, 2003), 3:482–85Google Scholar.

27. Susan Pearson argues that the use of sentimental concepts and language on behalf of state policies protecting animals and children marked a move toward a new type of liberalism later widely associated with the welfare state. See her Rights of the Defenseless (2011), 13. Subsequent proponents of federal social welfare policies made use of Carey’s sentimental appeal but very seldom repeated his emphasis on their measures’ limited scope.

28. Kimmel argues convincingly that Carey, like a number of other intellectuals and political leaders of his time, remained ambivalent about the emergence of a liberal political economy and the society that it helped to shape. Citing Watts (16), he concludes that these men had “one foot in a republican past and the other in a liberal future.” They “stood astride an upheaval” they “struggled to understand and direct.” See Kimmel, 226. Carey’s sentimental protectionism provides an example of how he imagined that liberal future, while his other protectionist argument reveals his enduring ties to republicanism.

29. Carey, Mathew, Autobiography (Brooklyn, 1942), 83Google Scholar. Per a bibliographical note in the frontispiece to this edition, “Mathew Carey’s Autobiography originally appeared as a series of letters in the New-England Magazine (July 1883–December 1835)… . Three supplementary letters were added to a few copies issued privately in 1837, from which this edition is lithographed.” Carey recalled that his father was a baker who “made a handsome fortune,” 2.

30. Mathew Carey, Autobiography, 3.

31. Mathew Carey, Autobiography, 3.

32. Green, James, Mathew Carey: Publisher and Patriot (Philadelphia, 1985), 3Google Scholar.

33. Green, Mathew Carey, 4.

34. Carey, Mathew, Serious Considerations on the East India Company. Submitted to Lord North (London, 1779), 4Google Scholar.

35. “Carey, Mathew,” Dictionary of American Biography, 490.

36. Mathew Carey, Autobiography, 6.

37. Mathew Carey, Autobiography, 8.

38. Mathew Carey, Autobiography, 10–11.

39. Mathew Carey, Autobiography, 13–16.

40. Mathew Carey, Autobiography, 21–22; Green, Mathew Carey, 7–8. One historian has characterized both periodicals as “at once a model and means to sensibility,” “improving readers’ minds, binding them in shared enjoyment and voluntary knowledge, and … debating self and society.” See Knott, 217.

41. Mathew Carey, Autobiography, 25, 30.

42. Mathew Carey, Autobiography, 22.

43. Mathew Carey, Autobiography, 28.

44. Carey, Mathew (attributed), Fragment. Addressed to the Sons and Daughters of Humanity. By a Citizen of the World (Philadelphia, 1796), 38Google Scholar.

45. Susanna Rowson, Charlotte: A Tale of Truth (Philadelphia: Printed [by D. Humphreys] for Mathew Carey, no. 118, Market Street, 1894); Elizabeth Barnes, “Word and Image—Part II: Novels” in Extensive Republic, 447–78. Cathy Davidson explains that Charlotte: A Tale of Truth later became more commonly known as Charlotte Temple. See her Revolution and the Word: The Rise of the Novel in America (New York, 1986), 17.

46. Sterne published The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman in nine volumes. The first two appeared in 1759 and the last in 1767, and the imprint varies: vols. 1 and 2, York, 1759 (2d ed., London: Dodsley, 1760); vols. 3 and 4, London: Dodsley, 1761; vols. 5 and 6, London: Becket, and De Hondt, 1762; vols. 7 and 8, London: Becket, and De Hondt, 1765; vol. 9, London: Becket, and De Hondt, 1767. One literary historian has even gone so far as to describe the sentimental novel as “itself the legacy of Laurence Sterne.” See James Chandler, “Placing the Power of Sympathy: Transatlantic Sentiments and the `First American Novel,’” in The Atlantic Enlightenment, ed. Susan Manning and Francis D. Cogliano (Aldershot, Hamps., 2008), 132.

47. Mathew Carey, Autobiography, 43.

48. On Carey’s role in the reprinting of Scottish Enlightenment works, see Knott, 16–17; Green, “The Rise of Book Publishing”: 84; Sher, 582.

49. Hume, David, A Treatise of Human Nature, Selby-Bigge, L. A., ed. bk. 2, sec. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888), 470Google Scholar.

50. Hume, David, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, 2d ed., ed. Selby-Bigge, L. A. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902), 287–94Google Scholar.

51. Berry, Commercial Society, 78, 82, 125, 130.

52. Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 546.

53. Matson, Cathy and Green, James N., “Ireland, America, and Mathew Carey,” Early American Studies 11, no. 3 (2013): 398CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Green, Mathew Carey, 26.

54. Green, Mathew Carey, 27.

55. Green, “Rise of Book Publishing,” 98.

56. Matson and Green, “Ireland, America, and Mathew Carey,” 400; Remer, 54, 132.

57. Kaser, David, Messrs. Carey & Lea of Philadelphia: A Study in the History of the Booktrade (Philadelphia, 1957), 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58. See Rowe, 24–29; Repousis, 343; “Carey, Mathew” DAB, 490–91; Bric, Maurice J., “Mathew Carey, Ireland, and the ‘Empire for Liberty’ in America,” Early American Studies 11 no. 3 (2013): 422–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Green, Mathew Carey, 8.

59. Abruzzo, “Apologetics of Harmony,” 9; Burke, Martin J., “Afterword: Why Should We Listen to Mathew Carey?” Early American Studies 11, no. 3 (2013): 583CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rowe, Mathew Carey, 68.

60. Carey, Autobiography, 83.

61. Ellis, 2.

62. Carey, Mathew, The Crisis: A Solemn Appeal to the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives (Philadelphia, 1823), viiiGoogle Scholar.

63. National Interests and Domestic Manufactures: Addresses of the Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of Domestic Industry, to the Citizens of the United States (Philadelphia: M. Carey, 1819).

64. Rowe asserts that Carey published these materials “chiefly at his own expense.” See Rowe, 30. Later in his career, Carey estimated that he had spent at least $4,000 on the printing and distribution of protectionist pamphlets and calculated that the amount of time that he devoted to the work, at middling wages, would have totaled some $10,000 more. See Carey, Mathew, Autobiographical Sketches (Philadelphia: Printed by J. Clarke, 1829), viGoogle Scholar.

65. For a discussion of Mathew Carey’s involvement with the association, see Peart, chap. 2.

66. Carey, Mathew, Essays on Political Economy; or, the Most Certain Means of Promoting Wealth, Power, Resource and Happiness of Nations: Applied Particularly to the United States (Philadelphia: H. C. Carey and I. Lea, 1822), 17Google Scholar; The New Olive Branch; or, An Attempt to Establish an Identity of Interest between Agriculture, Manufactures, and Commerce (Philadelphia: M. Carey and Son, 1820), 35.

67. Mathew Carey, “No. III,” Essays on Political Economy, 44; The Prospect before Us, 60.

68. Davenport, Stewart, Friends of Unrighteous Mammon: Northern Christians and Market Capitalism, 1815–1860 (Chicago, 2008), 31–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69. Mathew Carey, New Olive Branch, 19.

70. Mathew Carey, “No. II,” National Interests and Domestic Manufactures, 17.

71. “No. II,” National Interests and Domestic Manufactures, 17.

72. Carey, Mathew, “New Series. No. I,” in Addresses of the Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of National Industry, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: James Maxwell, 1820), 214Google Scholar.

73. Mathew Carey, “Preface,” National Interests and Domestic Manufactures, 1819, 5; “Preface to the Addresses,” Essays on Political Economy (Philadelphia, 1822), 12. Essays in Political Economy contains the full text of the Essays of the Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of National Manufactures, 6th ed. (1822).

74. Mathew Carey, New Olive Branch, 111.

75. Mathew Carey, New Olive Branch, 128.

76. Matson, “Learning Experience,” 475.

77. Davenport, Friends of Unrighteous Mammon, 35; Stephen Belko, W., The Triumph of the Antebellum Free Trade Movement (Gainesville, 1012), 76–80Google Scholar.

78. Mathew Carey, “No. V,” in National Interests and Domestic Manufactures, 1819, 32.

79. Samuel Jackson, “No XIII,” in National Interests and Domestic Manufactures, 1819, 236.

80. Mathew Carey, “Address to Congress: Being a View of the Ruinous Consequences of a Dependence on Foreign Markets … ,” in Essays on Political Economy, 384; “Address to the Farmers of the United States, on the Ruinous Consequences to their Vital Interests, of the Existing Policy of this Country,” in Essays on Political Economy, 439; “The Farmer’s and Planter’s Friend,” in Essays on Political Economy, 465, 509.

81. Mathew Carey, “National Interests, &c. No. I,” National Interests and Domestic Manufactures (1819), 15.

82. Mathew Carey, “National Interests, &c. No. I,” National Interests and Domestic Manufactures, 11.

83. At this point Carey’s case for the tariff resembled what historians have discussed as the “social control” argument for social welfare provision in this period. Walter Trattner defines this understanding of philanthropy and the provision of relief as reflecting the fact that “most middle- and upper-class Americans gave at this time—and throughout the nineteenth century—because they thought it was a good investment—a sound method of social control.” Trattner, 64.

84. Carey, Mathew, The Prospect before Us (Philadelphia: H. C. Carey & I. Lea, 1822), 42Google Scholar; “No. XI,” National Interests and Domestic Manufactures, 91.

85. Mathew Carey, “Memorial: To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States” (1820), in Essays on Political Economy, 241.

86. Mathew Carey, New Olive Branch, 96.

87. Mathew Carey, New Olive Branch, 102.

88. Carey, Mathew, View of the Very Great Natural Advantages of Ireland; and of the Cruel Policy Pursued for Centuries Toward that Island (Philadelphia: H. C. Carey and I. Lea, 1823), 13, 14Google Scholar.

89. Mathew Carey, View of the Very Great Natural Advantages of Ireland, 15.

90. Mathew Carey, View of the Very Great Natural Advantages of Ireland, 22, 15, 27.

91. Mathew Carey, “No. X,” in National Interests and Domestic Manufactures, 180.

92. Scholars have often attributed the “infant industries” argument to the German émigré Friedrich List, whom Carey helped to introduce to the United States in 1825. For a discussion of List and the infant industries argument, see Palen, Marc William, The “Conspiracy” of Free Trade: The Anglo-American Struggle over Empire and Economic Globalization, 1846–1896 (New York, 2016), 6–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93. Mathew Carey, “No. X,” in National Interests and Domestic Manufactures, 89.

94. Mathew Carey, New Olive Branch, 100.

95. On Mathew Carey’s advocacy for the poor, see Kimmel, 166, 215–16; on his understanding of poverty as a structural problem, see Katz, 7, and Axinn and Levin, 49; on Carey’s emphasis on low wages, see Katz, 7, and Trattner, 63.

96. Kimmel, 214–15.

97. Carey, Mathew (as “Howard”), Pauperism: To the Citizens of Philadelphia, Paying Poor Taxes (Philadelphia, 1827). Cited from Kimmel, 213–14Google Scholar.

98. Kimmel, 216.

99. The Pennsylvania State Legislature repealed the prohibition on outdoor relief shortly before Carey’s death in 1839. See Kimmel, 176.

100. Carey, Mathew, Appeal to the Wealthy of the Land, Ladies as well as Gentlemen, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: L. Johnson, July 1833), 24–28Google Scholar. Quoted from Kimmel, 216, in footnote 83.

101. On individualism in liberal discourse, see Dorothy Ross, “Liberalism,” 753. On the belief in progress from dependency to freedom, see Pearson, Rights of the Defenseless (2011), 14.

102. For an example of Mathew Carey’s early description of manufacturers as themselves suffering ruin at the hands of free trade, see New Olive Branch, 100, in which he describes the low tariff’s ill effects on “hundreds of capitalists” and “thousands of workmen.”

103. Carey, Mathew, Sir, I am Induced by the Critical Situation of the Application for the Protection of the Woolen and Other Manufacturers, to Address a Circular to Those Interested, on the Ill-Judged Course Hitherto Pursued (Philadelphia, 1828), 1–3Google Scholar.

104. The Boston Associates did not support the tariff before 1827. Daniel Webster had opposed high tariffs in the Senate, reflecting his support of his state’s considerable mercantile interest. But that changed at very nearly the same time that Carey pondered manufacturers’ position on the tariff. Webster voted in favor of a woolens tariff in 1827 and then, more famously, supported the 1828 tariff, an action widely interpreted to reflect the Boston Associates’ change of position on the measure. See Bolt, Tariff Wars, 62–64; Robert Dalzell, Enterprising Elite: The Boston Associates and the World They Made (Cambridge, Mass., 1987), 41–32; Remini, Robert, Daniel Webster: The Man and His Time (New York, 1997), 295Google Scholar. For another discussion of manufacturers’ failure to promote the tariff to Carey’s satisfaction, see Huston, “Virtue Besieged,” 542–43.

105. Ross, Dorothy, The Origins of American Social Science (New York, 1990), 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Liberalism,” in A Companion to American Thought, ed. Richard Wightman Fox and James T. Kloppenberg (Oxford, 1995), 397.

106. Ellis, 99–128.

107. Carey, Mathew, To the Thinking Few (Philadelphia, 1827), 1Google Scholar; Mathew Carey, Autobiographical Sketches, 86.

108. Mathew Carey, To the Thinking Few, 1.

109. Mathew Carey, To the Thinking Few, 1.

110. Mathew Carey, “Humanity,” in Miscellaneous Essays (Philadelphia: Carey and Hart, 1830), 366–67.

111. Mathew Carey, Autobiography, 112.

112. Mathew Carey, Autobiography, 114.

113. Mathew Carey, Autobiographical Sketches, 80.

114. Peart, 71, 45.

115. Peart, 44, 55.

116. Henry Clay, “Speech in Support of An American System for the Protection of American Industry, delivered in the House of Representative, on the 30th and 31st of March, 1824” (Washington City: Printed at the Columbian Office, 1824), 30.

117. Henry Clay, “Speech in Support of An American System,” 6, 24.

118. Henry Clay, “Speech in Defense of the American System against the British Colonial System” delivered in the United States Senate, February 2d ed. and 6th, 1832 (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1832), 33.

119. Phillips, Willard, Manual of Political Economy: With Particular Reference to Institutions, Resources and Condition of the United States (Boston, 1828), 187, 162, 196Google Scholar.

120. Phillips, , Propositions Concerning Protection and Free Trade (Boston, 1850), 142Google Scholar.

121. Phillips, Propositions, 88, 135, 129, 84, 79, 89.

122. Colton, Calvin, Public Economy for the United States (New York: A. S. Barnes, 1848), 63, 80Google Scholar.

123. Colton, Public Economy for the United States, 86, 280.

124. Colwell, Stephen, Politics for American Christians: A Word Upon Our Example as a Nation, Our Labour, Our Trade, Elections, Education and Congressional Legislation (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo and Co., 1852), 34–35Google Scholar.

125. Colwell, Stephen, The Claims of Labor and Their Precedence to the Claims of Free Trade (Philadelphia: C. Sherman and Son, 1861), 46, 51Google Scholar. For a fuller discussion of Colwell’s protectionism, see Drew VandeCreek, “Mixed Feelings: Stephen Colwell, Christian Sensibility, and the American State, 1841–61,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 142, no. 2 (April 2018): 189–214.

126. Henry C. Carey, The Past, the Present, and the Future (Philadelphia: Carey and Hart, 1848).

127. Carey, Past, Present, Future, 408; The Working of British Free Trade (New York: Myron Finch, 1852), 7. On British free trade as a tax, see his The Harmony of Interests (Philadelphia: J. S. Skinner), 194.

128. Henry C. Carey, Past, Present, Future, 255.

129. Henry C. Carey, Past, Present, Future, 279–80, 255.

130. Henry C. Carey, Past, Present, Future, 379.

131. Carey, Henry C., “What Constitutes Real Freedom of Trade?” American Whig Review 6, no. 2 (1850): 128Google Scholar.

132. Carey, Henry C., “British Free Trade in Ireland,” The Plough, the Loom, and the Anvil, 5, no. 30 (1852): 129–30Google Scholar. Quotation from “Kohl’s Travels in Ireland,” i.e., J. G. Kohl, Travels in Ireland (London: Bruce and Wyld, 1844).

133. Henry C. Carey, Past, Present, Future, 299–300, 459.

134. For Henry C. Carey’s use of the “stifle in the cradle” metaphor, see Principles of Social Science, vol. 3 (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Co., 1859), 292, and The Unity of Law (Philadelphia: Henry Carey Baird, 1873), 28, 203. For his references to infanticide, see Past, Present, Future, 274; The Prospect: Agricultural, Manufacturing, Commercial and Financial: At the Opening of the Year 1851 (Philadelphia: J. S. Skinner, 1851), 7; and The Slave Trade, Domestic and Foreign (Philadelphia: A. Hart, 1853), 128.

135. Henry C. Carey, Past, Present, Future, 74, 92–93.

136. Henry C. Carey, Harmony of Interests, 229.

137. Henry C. Carey based his reasoning on this point on the assumption that continued high American wages would attract increasing numbers of immigrants from Great Britain. Ultimately, in order to retain a labor force, British employers would be compelled to raise wages. See Harmony of Interests, 18, 28, 77, 88, 98, 135, 220.

138. Ross, Origins, 47–48; Goldstein, Ideas, Interests, and American Trade Policy, 24; Holt, Michael, The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party (New York, 1999), 69–70, 952Google Scholar; Boritt, Gabor, Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream (Memphis, 1978), 99, 113, 139Google Scholar.

139. Henry C. Carey, Past, Present, Future, 250.

140. Southerners often protested that a high tariff benefited northern manufacturers while harming agricultural interests in their region, as seen in the Nullification Crisis of 1832–33. See Freehling, W. W., Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816–1836 (New York, 1966), 193Google Scholar.

141. See Pearson, 2004 and 2011 passim.

142. Dorfman remarks that “Carey was indefatigable in the distribution of his writings,” and in 1819 he “flooded Congress and the country with the Addresses of the Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of National Industry.” See his Economic Mind in American Civilization, 384. William K. Bolt has seconded this analysis. See his Tariff Wars, 24.

143. See Brezis, Elise S., “Mercantilism,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Economic History, ed. Mokyr, Joel (Oxford, 2003), 3:482–85Google Scholar; also see Peskin, 29.

144. See note 108 above.

145. Mathew Carey served a single term in elective office, as a member of the Philadelphia city council. See Green, Mathew Carey, 25.

146. Of the seven essays appearing in Statebuilding from the Margins, four directly discuss emotional appeals for increased state capacity. Julie Novkov’s “Making Citizens of Freedmen and Polygamists” notes the use of “heated moral rhetoric” by opponents of the slavery and polygamy but concludes that the campaign ultimately relied on more “concrete augmentation of state capacity” (51). Marek D. Steedman’s “Demagogues and Demon Drink: Newspapers and the Revival of Prohibition in Georgia” discusses how newspaper editors fomented feelings of “panic” (76, 82) and “fabricated rage” (79) and “anxiety” (93) over race relations to promote prohibition. Susan J. Pearson and Kimberly K. Smith’s “Developing the Animal Welfare State” expands on the arguments made in Pearson’s Rights of the Defenseless. James L. Greer’s “The Better Homes Movement and the Origins of Mortgage Redlining in the United States” briefly describes how realtors’ trade associations sought to identify home ownership with the nurturing of children and promotion of family life (214).