The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1857-09-10
JOHN MITCHELL ON PRODUCTION.


The institution of Negro Slavery has a most
enthusiastic advocate in John Mitchell, a gen.
tleman principally known to the world from his
abortive attempt to give freedom to the op-
pressed people of Ireland. Strange as the
above sentence may sound, it is true, unless
the last clause of it be deceptive. For it is pos.
sible that Mr.. Mitchell never intended, if he
had succeeded in throwing off the English yoke,
to better the condition of the laborers of poor
Ireland. For the sake of consistency, let us
suppose that he did not
Mr.. Mitchell has published two long letters
in the Irish News, giving his impressions OF
| Slavery. He is in love with human slavery
| in love with the South. We shall not quarrel
with him for his preferences, nor attempt to ex.
pose his inconsistency, but only quote singu.
lar paragraph from one of his letters. 1t is as
| follows
"Another grand element of security at the
| South is. that what these States supply all the
acorld acdnts! and nowhere else can the world
get it so good, so cheap, and in such quantity.
| The matter is different in the North. Human
food can be raised everywhere. The
quite ss well anywhere else. Cotton, If you
can only get 1t, may be spun or woven in any
climate. Anybody, anywhere, can manufacture
iron castings, railroad carriages, patent medi.
| cines, wooden nutmegs. But the South besides
producing more than she wants of corn and
cattle, and all sorts of food, flor even South
Carolina now exports wheat holds in her
hands almost monopoly of one necessary of
human life for all the world"
According to this novel and brilliant view OF
the science of production, the prosperity of the
most civilized States of the world rests upon a
dangerous foundation.
England and France, countries which pro-
duce principally food and manufactures, are in
constant danger of ruin. The free States,
which do not raise cotton, for that reason ere
not so sure of prosperity as the South ButTA
Mr.. Mitchell correct in his statement Can
"iron castings, railroad carriages" &C., &c. be
manufactured by "anybody, snywhere?" If
they can be, they are not. They are not in the
Stare States. So then, it seems, this fancied
independence of the South is delusion. The
South raises cotton, but cannot manufacture IT..
She does not even manufacture the very hoes
with which her cotton is cultivated. The matter
resolves itself into something like the following
statement: The South raises a great staple,
wanted everywhere and by everybody but she
does not manufacture at all, and is entirely de-
pendent upon others for her tools, her clothes,
her books, and for thousand things which we
have no space to mention. Is she at all indie
pendent of the outside world, then? Could not
the North dispense with cotton easier than she
with manufactured articles?
Again; The slave States are constantly wear.
ing out their cotton lands. Where are the new
ones to come from? Slavery exhausts the soil
rapidly is it certain that fresh lands will al-
ways be found Is here not fact injurious
to the security of Southern property? 1t is also
we'll known that the cotton crop in the Ameri,
can States is very uncertain crop, and exceed
ingly liable to damage by early frost is this
crop, then, "the grand element of security to
the South"
Mr.. Mitchell entirely overlooks the fact that
experiments are making, in many parts of the
world, to grow cotton. 1t is not at all improb-
able that some of these may succeed; and if so,
where would the cotton-growing States be left,
resting erUuirly olId o',st. osy ~Pe.. chat ono
staple, and with chsttel slavery at the bottom of
that?
The truth of the matter is, that the slave
States are less prosperous than the free; that
property in them does not rest upon secure
foundation. With Freedom, the exclusive cul-
ture of great staple would unquestonaby
give an advantage over other States for with
Freedom, other interests would not be neglect
ed the soil would not be ruined, and in case of
successful competition in the culture of the
staple, ruin would not necessarily follow, for
other crops would easily and quickly be grown;
the free State would not be entirely dependent
upon outsiders for its manufactured goods, and
its people would thus escape bankruptcy.
Freedom sharpens the wit fosters invention,
gives versatility to the mind. With it, no State
will rest content to grow only cotton; and even
if it did, it would escape destruction, if compe-
tition came, by resort to the growth of other
crops, and by the use of an economy and in.
dustry which are incompatible with human sla-
very in any shape whatever.