The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1849-06-02

ding these sums by the number Of peopl
IN The two sections respectively, accoIdin
TO the preceding census Of 1910, we I'm
IN the South an average amount Of pIopert
about thirty dollars less per head than il
the North. But as the North had, sine
1910, increased little faster in population
Than the South, we may assign difference
Of twenty five dollars a head in favor O
the North, according TO their assessment
which cannot however be relied on as an
accurate valuation Of the property of tn,
TWO sections. Assessments for taxation ar,
apt TO vary considerably from the truth, be
cause individuals are interested, for the most
part in undertaking. but sometimes in over
valuing their property. Much property
too, escapes this sort OF assessment alto.
gelher-eSpecially in the North. where
there is so much invisible property in the
form Of stocks, bonds, cash, &c.
But how is this Mr.. Fisher makes the
average wealth Of the Southern people ex.
coed that Of the Northern by seventy.two
dollars a head. How does he bring this
difference about! lie takes white popula
ton as population, and negro slaves as pro-
perry only. putting them with the cattle and
swine, as live stock, and nothing else. By
this crafty management, he greatly reduces
the Southern population, and thus brings
out mach larger average Of property for
tie Southern people. IL he had, at the
same time, deducted the value of the slaves
from the amount of Southern property.
there would have been something like fair
ness in the procedure. But this would not
have suited bis purpose, because then the
average of Northern wealth would have been
still greater.
Nov The main diff OF Mr.. Fishers ar.
gument is to show thar slavery is bless
ing, because it promotes the accumulation
of wealth. The first object Of ciyilsed
life" says he, on P. 4. "is 10 accumulate
wealth, as on that depends improvement
in science and the arts, and the supply OF
The multiplied wants OF society"
Having made this the test point, in order
10 determine whether an institution such as
slavery is good or evil, he then proceeds to
make out that slavery promotes the accu-
mutation of wealth in the Southern States,
and is therefore a blessing to them. But he
could not make this out-or rather he could
not find even plausible way of seeming
TO make out something like it, il he consid
cred the slaves as human beings, or as con-
shutting any part Of the population of the
country; for then, when he came 10 divide
the aggregate wealth OF States by their pop;
ulalion, his Southern States would be found
in arrear, even when slaves were valued
as q part Of their wealth. But when he de-
Quoted them from the population, sller add,
ing them 10 the wealth, then he found two
or three slave States which seemed to be
weather. than two or three free States, IA
proportion to free population, and on
these partial and seeming results he found
ed his conclusion that slavery promotes the
accumulation of wealth ia the Southern
Stsies.
Now, IL it were proved TO demonstra-
ton, that slavery promotes the wealth Of
shareholders, or even Of the free populs-
ton OF q State, slavery might still be an
evil and deplofabIe thing on account OF the
wrong inflicted on the slaves, and the check
that it imposes On the increase Of poPula.
lion, the development OF the resources Of
the country, the diffusion OF knowledge,
and the cultivation OF arts and literature.
But apart from the question-whethef
the accumulation Of wealth is the proper
test Of the benefits OF slavery-we deny
altogether the Justice and propriety Of MIR,
Fishers mode Of estimating the compare.
tive wealth OF States, by adding the value
OF the slaves to the sum OF other wealth,
and s1bracting their number from the pop.
ulation, used in calculating the average
wealth CT the COMMUNITY. II is easy to
show that the whole population OF the
States compared ought to be used in the
calculation; or, If certain class Of peo.
pie be deducted in one Of the States, the
corresponding class ought to be deducted
in The other. The slaves in Virginia do
tie same sorts Of labor, and occupy the
same situation as the hired laborers in the
free States. The difference between them
is, that hired men work by contract for wa
ges, while slaves do the same work without
contract, for whatsoever their masters may
choose TO allow them. The hired labor
err may hold property, but generally pos
sesses little Of it; the slave can have no
property, but is commonly allowed to use
the necessary supply for his physical wants
Every civilized society is composed chief
ly Of two classes-cGPitGlists, who employ
the labor OF Others, and labOTers, who work
for the capitalists. Some, it is true, are
both capitalists and laborers; that is, they
work with thsiI own capital, like the small
farmer who cultvates his land by his own
labor. But these make no difference in
the present case. Every free State has q
class Of hired laborers, who do the same
part for their employers that slaves do for
their masters. The object OF the present
inquiry is to know whether the system Of
employing free labor is or Is not more pro.
ductiye OF wealth than the system Of EN-.
ploying slave labor. We have to deter.
mine the question by comparing the results
Of each system, in communities where they
have operated under equal circumstances Of
time and Of physical advantage and disad
vantage.
Now in comparingthe results, as between
New York or Pennsylvania on The one
side. and Virginia or North Carolina on the
other. it is obvious that no just conclusion
can be attained, unless We compare the two
communities either class nv class as can;