The Ripley advertiser. [volume] (Ripley, Miss.) 1843-1897, 1855-11-01

UNCLE SAM AND THE FOR
EIGNERS.
Nh. F. FoRD:
The Editor Of INC!
Sem in his paper of the 18th inst, st
tacks my article previously published
in the advertiser in which | denied tn,
statement so often made by the Know
Nothings, that it was in consequence
of the foreigners in the free State'
that those States had more votes il
Congress than the Southern or Slav,
States. He denies the correctness o
my figures and positively makes th'
assertion again that the Know Moth
ing charge against the foreigners in
the free States is true. This devolve.
on me the necessity Of showing up tn,
gentleman's IGNORANCE somewhat
in detail
On page As of DeBow's compcndi.
um of the census of 1850 is the follow.
ing statement:
THE number Of whites in the slave
holding States in 1890 was ,27l ,4sS
in 1900, 1902 $50; 1910, 2,20S,-
1856; in 1920, 1881 $50; in 1920,
3,662 COG; in 1910, 34,5la; and
in 1850, 6,222,4ls.
The number of whites in the pre-
sent non-slaveholding States, in 1890,
was l,9OO,976; in 1900, 1901 500;
1910, 3,G53,2l9; 1920, 5000 ,377; | $50,
6,s74,772; 1910, 9J6l,l76; 1850, 49,
330, $50"
By the above learn that there was
a difference of at least fifty per cent
between the white population of the
slave-holding and free States in 1890,
and that the difference has existed
ever since, This difference existed
when there was hardly any foreigners
in the country and It has existed every
time the census has been taken.
The slaves in the Y States in 1890
was 697 O7.--Three filths is 4IS,704
this is the number counted in ap-
portioning Representatives. Add this
to the number of whites in the slave
holding States at that time and we
have 800, 1872. This still lacks 2lO,-
7s3 Of being equal with the free
States then. The same holds good
with regard to the slave and free
States in 1900, Then the difference
in the white population was about the
same in 1870. The slaves in the U.
States in 1900 was 800, ,04l--three
ftths of that number is 535, ,S2l; this
added to the number of whites in the
slave States would make 2,23s, SOL
SO that the slave States were more
than 800, 900 behind the free States in
in 1890 after adding three
tifths ofthe slaves. The difference in
the population of the free and slave
States in 1919 was more than sixty
per cent. being greater than in 1900 or
1890. The slaves in 1910 was | l,l9l,-
36i. Three fifths would be 7l4,sl7-
his added to the whites in those
States would make 2,S23 ,502, being
129,7l7 less than the population of
he free States at that time.
BY DeBow's census already referred
o learn that the foreigners coming to
he country from 1890, to 1900. a
to SO O,OO0-from 1900 to 1910
he number was 70 ,OOO--from 1910 to
$50 the number was ll4,000. BY
ooking at what have shown to be
he difference in the population Of the
rec and slave States in 1900 and 1910
{ will be seen that if every foreigner
n the county at each of those periods
lad been a resident Of the South, that
he South would still have been be.
lind the free States. In other words
he difference between the North and
south was much greater than the
lumber of foreigners in the country.
The free States having the most pop
llation at the three periods named
# course they had more Representa-
ives in Congress than the slavehol-
ling States. For the difference be-
wcen the free and slave States in
$50 | refer to the work already quo
ed, page "A, where l find the follow
ng language:
The present slaveholding States
which had, in 1920, ninety seven Rep
escntatives to one hundred and sixty
ne from the free States. had in 1850
me hundred and twenty to one hun
red and seventy six from the free
States"
DeBow includes the Senators and
together, so that it is
ust the same as giving the number of
Electoral votes. According to De
low the difference between the Elec-
oral vote of the free and Slave States
vas greater in 1920 than il was in
$50. Then it was g.; in 1850 it was