The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1847-11-27

-. N.so iSeuiho VI iClilp di4o lax raised IN
Virginia, there is an evident blunder of the
Deputy Alarshals in the counties of Bed
lord, Prince William, Lee and Lewis:
where hundred weights reported, seem to
have been set down as tons. With this
exception, no great errors appears. We
have made the correction in our calculations;
but enormous as the error seems to be, il
might stand without materially varying the
comparative results.
By estimating the value Of the yearly
products OF each State, and dividing the
same by the number Of persons employed
IN making those products, we find the aver
age value produced by each person: and by
comparing the results of the calculation for
the several States, we discover the compare
tive productiveness of Agricultural labor in
the States. This is what we want for our
argument.
Professor Tucker, late Of the University
of Virginia, in his useful book, on The
Progress Of Population, &c, has given in
detail a calculation of this sort. He was
certainly not partial to the North in his esti-
mates. We have carefully examined them;
and think that his valuations of products
are in some particulars erroneous. We
think, also, that he has omitted some ele-
ments necessary TO an accurate result. We
have therefore IN our own calculations az
rived at results somewhat different from his
yet so far as our argument is concerned, the
difference is immaterial. We can there
fore assure you, fellow citizens, that no sort
of calculation, founded on any thing like
truth or reason, can bring out result ma
terially different from ours.
We have not room here for the particu-
lars that enter into the calculations: we can
only give the results themselves.
The general results, according to both
Mr. Tucker and ourselves, are as follows:
In New England, agricultural industry
yields an annual value, averaging about one
hundred and eighty dollars to the hand, that
is, for each person employed.
In the middle States of New York, New
jersey and Pennsylvania, the average is
about two hundred and sxty-fve or two
hundred and seventy dollars to the hand.
And in the old slave States, South of the
Potomac, the average is abour 100 dollars
to the hand. This, according TO our calcu-
lation, is rather above the average for East
Virginia, but below that for West Virginia.
The average for all Virginia is about 136
dollars.
Thus it appears by the best evidence
which the case admits Of, that the farmers
Of the middle States, with their free labor,
produce more than twice as great value TO
the hand, as the farmers and planters Of the
old slave States; and that even the New
Englanders, on their poor soils and under
their wintry sky. make nearly forty per cent
more, to the hand, than the old Southemers
make in the "sunny South, with the ad-
vantage Of their valuable staples, cotton and
tobacco.
In Maryland, the result is intermediate
between the average Of the North and that
Of the South; and this agrees strikingly with
her condition as hahslave State; for low
er Maryland is cultivated by negroes, and
has languishing agriculture, as well as
stationary population: but upper Mary
land is cultivated by free labor, and has
thriving agriculture with growing PoPu-
lation.
These results, founded on the best evidence,
and confirmed by general observation, are
for substance individually correct, and can
not be overthrown. ....-
Now it is admitted on all hands, that
slave labor is better adapted to agriculture,
than to any other branch Of industry; and
that, if not good for agriculture, it is really
good for nothing.
Therefore, since in agriculture, slave la
Dor is proved to be far less productive than
free labor,--slauery is demonstrated TO be
not only unproftable, but deeply injurious
TO the public prosperity.
We do not mean that slave labor can
never earn anything for him that employs
il. The question is between free labor and
slave labor. He that chooses TO employ a
sort of labor, that yields only half as much
to the hand az another sort would yield,
makes q choice that is not only Improbable,
but deeply injurious to his interest.
Agriculture in the slave States may be
characterized in general by two ePlthets--
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES in all agrl-
cultural countries forebode two thlngs-im-
neutrality-suspicious.. The gener-
al system of slaveholding farmers and plan.
ters, in all times and places, has been, and
now is. and ever will be, to cultivate much
land, badly, for present gain-in short, to
kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
They cannot do otherwise with lsborers who
work by compassion, for the benefit only oil
their masters and whose sole Interest in the
matter is, to do as little and to consume as
much as1possible.
This ruinous system Of large farms Guilt
waited by slaves, showed its effects IN Italy,
1900 years ago, when the Roman empire
was at the height of its grandeur.
PIiny. writer Of that age, in his Natu-
raj History, Book Is, oh. Id tells u.s.
that while the small farms of former times
were cultivated by freemen, and even great
commanders did not disdain to labor with
their own hands, agriculture fiourished, ano
provisions were abundant: but that alter
wards, when the lands were engrossed by
few great proprietors, and cultivated BY let
tered and branded slaves, the country was
ruined. and corn had to be imported. lhe
same system was spreading ruin over the
provinces, and thus the prosperity oil me
smn;re was undermined. Pliny denounces