at more than $2,000,000,000; which means that goods to this amount
were sold, for which a return was received, either in money or
its equivalent, most of it, ultimately, as wages for labor. Of
course no blockade could stop all of this; but it does not seem
impossible that it could stop half of it, if our fleet were destroyed
by the enemy. Supposing that this half were divided equally among
all the people in the United States, it would mean that each man,
woman, and child would lose about $10 in one year. If the loss
could be so divided up, perhaps no very great calamity would ensue.
But, of course, no such division could be made, with the result
that a great many people, especially poor people, earning wages
by the day, would lose more than they could stand. Suppose, for
instance, that a number of people earning about $900 a year, by
employment in export enterprises, were the people upon whom the
actual loss eventually fell by their being thrown out of employment.
This would mean that more than a million people--men, women, and
children--would be actually deprived of the means of living. It
seems clear that such a thing would be a national disaster, for
any loss of money to one man always means a loss of money or its
equivalent to other men besides. For instance: suppose A owes $20
to B, B owes $20 to C, C owes $20 to D, D owes $20 to E, E owes
$20 to F, F owes $20 to G, G owes $20 to H, H owes $20 to I, and
I to J. If A is able to pay B, and does so, then B pays C, and so
on, and everybody is happy. But suppose that A for some reason,
say a blockade, fails to receive some money that he expected; then
A cannot pay B, B cannot pay C, and so on; with the result, that
not only does J lose his $20, but nine men are put in debt $20
which they cannot pay; with the further result that A is dunned by
H, B is dunned by C, and so on, producing a condition of distress
which would seem to be out of all proportion to a mere lack of $20,