The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1857-02-05
For the National Era
THE CONTRAST OF LIBERTY AND SLAVERY

Sir Philip Sidney once said of Alexander.
that he received more true bravery of mind
from the pattern of Achilles, than by hearing
the definition Of fortitude.
And the human mind is educated, on all
| subjects, better and faster by pattern than by
precept; for, as "a mirror for magistrates j.
| shows us, Example hastens deeds to good
effects"
The writer Of this has been impressed by an
amination-somewhat careful-into the com
parative progress lin all that is substantial in
the prosperity CT a State or Nation) of Freedom,
as contrasted with Sta0ery, not only as that
contrast is seen between the North and the
South, as whole, but in those Free and Slave
States which came into the Union cotempo-
raneously-the latter as make. weights, or a
counterpoise in the scales OF the Confedcracy.
which now seem to hang almost in even bal
ance, as if uncertain which scale shall prepon-
derate.
Thomas Kempis has said, "it is wise to
turn examples Of all sorts 10 ones advantage :"
and we propose to do this, in giving contrasled
view of Freedom and Slavery, in the race of
empire, as the contrast is presented in the his
tory OF those States which came into the Union
at or about the same time.
We begin with Ohio aud Lnuisigaa. The
former, admitted into the Union November 30,
loVZ; the latter, Aprli 8, 1917.
Previous to the admission OF Ohio az State,
IN 1902, Freedom and Slavery were represent
ed, in the halls Of cur National Legislature
each by eight Sovereign States of the Confede-
racy.
AS TO numbers, the Free and Slave States
then stood on an equality, although, in the dis
tribution of State patronage or place, under the
General Government, the Slave States then, as
at almost every subsequent quadrennial period
OF our national history, received the lions
share.
And, OF our National area at that period, the
Slave States, with population q 1915 less than
the Free, measured l3l, O07 square milcs, or
IL, 10000 square acres more than the Free a
balance Of State area, in favor of the former.
larger than sill New England, (G5,038 square
miles,) and nearly as large as the New England
and Middle States together, (l79,622 square
mIles)-a territorial balance in favor of the
Slave Power, which has since been increased
by the addition of another balance-item of
lO7,904 square miles thus giving to the
Slave States, not Territories, in 1850, with their
population Of only 1864, 656, (includiBg the
3,2043l3 slaves owned by 347,525 masters.)
S5l, 50S square miles, against Gl2,597 SQUARE
miles in the Free States, with their population
Of l3,434,922 free men ; beth items (l3l.O07
and 10000 making an aggregate balance in
our National State area, Of 238,9lI square
miles, or ,040 square acres, in favor of
human bondage; a division of State area which,
after making the Slave States equal with the
Free, would give to each one of the 347,525
shareholders in the Union snug little plants-
ton of more than 400 acres, as his share in the
division OF spoils between these two sections of
the Union.
Thus has Slavery struck the national balance
at two periods in our history: (lst,) at the
commencement of the present century; and, |
(2d,) in 1850.
And 1t is bat the statement of plain and
incontrovertible fact to affirm that the Slave !
States OF the Union have, as a whole, an ad. |
vantage over the Free, in climate, soil, and |
production, and also in many other natural !
advantages for adding to their material pros
perity, and that they might have had, under |
the prestige of free institutions, all the com
mercial, manufacturing, social, literary, moral, |
and religious advantages which are SO abund |
antly enjoyed by the free North.
But what have been the facts, as developed |
in the cotemporaneous history and growth-in |
all tina. elevates people-of those States which
came into the Union about the same time, and |
which have since been running the race Of en-
pire, side by side
We propose to elicit an answer to this oues-
ton from the cotemporary history of those
States that came into the Union by couplets,
tour OF them, at least, twin sisters in their Ma
icnal birth.
We begin the examination with
OHIO AND LOUISIANA.
he former admitted to State privileges, as 8
member of the Confederacy, in 1902; the lat
err in 1872.
That we may form an intelligent estimate in
he premises, brief reference to the previous
history of these two States seems necessary.
As to the length of time which has elapsed
ince these two portions of our country first
began to be settled, Louisiana has a very
great advantage over Ohio, in the fact that
ne territory now embraced within the limits Of
louisiana was explored in 1882, (lO6 years
before the first permanent settlement in Ohio,)
~ III. La Sale, French gentleman, from
whom it received its present name, in honor of
louis XIV of France, surnaned "the Great" I
Ilso styled Dtea- Donne, Or God-given.
The first settlement of Louisiana was at |
uccessful attempt-in 1899, by NJ. Iberyille,
Who founded Colony on the Mississippi. [
This was soon followed by other efforts to ,
,olonize this country-especially one made bv {
u. Crozat, French capitalist of large means. {
gho monopoli2ed the entire trade of the DeIta
# the Mississippi, and above it's mouths. for a {
lumber of years. :
In l7l7, or about that time, N. Crozat dis
,osed of his interest in the Colony to a French
To-, with Royal Charter from Louis XIV. the .
Wen Beloved" Ia surname which he lost !
nder the auspices of John Law, Scotchman.
nd the celebrated protector of F." Law's Bubble"