The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1849-06-16

y mutton than New \ OIkeTs moreover han
I ers eat bear meat and negroes eat possun
E Well, what is the reference WI,
nothing, or any thing you please.
In general the people of the Unite
States have sufIioiency OF good food
slaves and very poor white people common
ly fare hard; the less poor white people
Shade better, and so on TO the luxurious die
OF the wealthy. The most important dill
ference between the North and the Sout
in respect TO food is, that free labor gener
ates habits Of economy in the North, AM
slavery generates habits Of profusion, vast
and theft in The South; so that Northern
man will live comfortably on about two
thirds Of the store of food whicha Southern
er requires. This makes a large differ
ence IN the accumulation az wealth., anc
accounts in par, for the superior wealIh anC
prosperity Of the North.
| We have done wiIhsMr. Fishers frs
proposition. -.
:. agriculture, according to Mr.. Fish.
er, is more productive of wealth than other
branches Of industry and here he has
reached at last what he conceves to be the
cause, why the Southern States have tri-
umphed las he styles i0 in the accumula.
ton Of wealth. They are $50 agricultu-
ral, says Mr.. Fisher.
Nov, in the outset, we deny that the
Southern States are MOE agricultural than
the Northern. The contrary is the fact
New York in 1910 had on her 10000
square miles Of land, ass, 900 persons en-.
gaged in agriculture, wien Virginia had
OF her GO, 900 square niles but $4,000
engaged in the same occup ton. So it is
generally the case, a. the prec, ding tables
show, that the soil of the older free States
is much MORE completely, as well as skill.
fully and effectually inn ,roved and Gu ii.
waited, than that Of the oder slaveholding
States. Whatever superiority, either eco.
nomcal or moral, there nay be in agricul.
ture over other occupations, il is enjoyed
more fully in the North tlen in the South,
because whatever products the soil can
yield. are more fully drawn out, and what
ever moral advantages rural life affords,
the Northern system affords them to great
er number of persons inproportion to ex-
tent OF surface and the natural capabilities
Of the country.
Not only are the agricultural resources
Of The North more fully developed, but her
agricultural produces are more probably
exchanged than those of the same so.t in
the South. Her cities ard manufactures
give her better home market for selling
and buying, her canals and railroads give
her cheaper transportation for products,
and cheaper fares for travel. Were it rot
for the Southern climate, which produces
cotton, sugar. and tob,cco, mo thanks to
slavery for thst,) the agricultural alvan-
lagea Of the North wo1ld be far more strik.
ing. But one fact eyinces that they are
great, notwithstanding the natural advan.
t9ges OF the South. Lands OF the same
quality are mu,h more valuable in the man
ufacturlng and commercial States, especi.
ally near their cities, Than they are in the
purely agricultural States. This well
known fact can be accounted for only on
lhe supposllon, that agriculture is more
profitable IN the former States than in the
latter-as the census tables show, and this
superior profit Of cultivation can be traced
10 no other primary cause, than the supe-
rior adaptation of the free labor system to
the production of agricultural, as well as
manufacturing and commercial wealth.
This train oil reasoning is evidently sound
and cannot be refuted.
Next, we deny that agriculture is more
productive of wealth than other branches OF
industry. The only qualification OF this
denial is, that slaves are not as fit for other
as they are for the simpler
sorts of tillage. But since the question is,
whether slave labor promotes the wealth Of
o State, this Circumstance has no bearing
on our present inquiry, relative to the com.
parative productiveness OF agriculture and
other branches Of industry in human socie-
ty at large. If slaves cannot manufacture
well, free men can.
The advocates OF perpetual slavery in
the South, borrowed from Adam Smith,
and he from the old French school of
Economists, the notion, that agriculture is
las Mr.. Fisher expresses iD "more product.
i've or multiplying than other occupations"
because nature multiple the planted seed
sometimes hundred fold. The general
principle on which Adam Smith insists is,
that nature helps the labors Of man more
in agriculture, than in manufactures and
commerce. That would be nothing to the
purpose, if ii were true. But it is not true.
Nature assists the labors Of man quite
as much in other branches Of industry as
In the cultivation of the soil--witness the
powers Of steam, of wind, OF water, and Of
FIRE, employedin the arts. But these things
are irrelevant TO the matter in hand.
Accumulation of wealth depends on d.
vision of employmrnts and exchange Of pro-
ducts. Men could accumulate no wealth,
No more than the wild Indians, if all pur-
sued The same occupations. If every man
undertook to be farmer. mechanic, manu-.
facturer, &C.. every man would stsrve, OF
be forced to hunt and fish for his life, like |
The savages.
Men must, therefore, divide their labors
before they can accumulate wealth; some
must ill the soil. while others devote them
selves to ne various branches. Of handicralt.
before their industry can accumulate CAPT
aI. Then they must exchange their sur
plus products through the agency of mer-
,hant-. Thus all branches Of labor he
come productive. Otherwise none can be
productive.
Now we ask, how can men be Induced
o divide their labors, except on the Prnci-