Sugar planter. [volume] (West Baton Rouge [i.e. Port Allen, West Baton Rouge Parish, La.]) 1856-1925, 1860-12-15
Ike Sugar Qaessios.

fim the Union. They may be better off in
every point Of view by going out Of the
UNION but we think our good Bayou Sale
frisnd-whose communication will be found
in to-day's paper-though he argues that
question well, has failed to prove il. He
thinks our arguments tend to create uneasi-
ness and alarm on the minds of the sugar
planters That may be true. and still we
may be right. A cry Of fire. at night may
cuate uneasiness and alarm; but that is no
Argument against it. The result of that fire
may ruin property instead of merely depre-
Getting its value. Does our intelligent cor
respondent intend to be understood that no
inquiry should be made in regard to the
eject of secession on the sugar interests OF the
State for fear of "creating alarm and ''de.
pfeciatirg property % Is this great move
ment which may involve the ruin Of every
sugar planter in the State, and involve the
whole nation in ruin. to be made with our
eyes and ears closed! Are we to rely solely
upon the assurances Of those " no sing syren
songs to US! Or are We yet allowed to think.
Uason, and draw honest conclusions? We
have no objections to see Louisiana secedr
from the Union when her citizens, after due
reflection, think it best to do so but We can
0e no improperly in inquiring whether Sc
cession will ruin or benefit fhe sugar planters
of the State' Still, if We thought such an
isquirv obnoxious to those planters. we have
10 interest in discussing it. Ii they are will
ling to risk the consequences without discus
Aon, We are! for We have not the fortune 10
s~n 4 plantation Of any kind, and never ex-
pect to. We only discuss this subject from a
sense of duty as editors OF a journal preferring
b take a lively interest in whatever affects
Me welfare Of the sugar planters of the State.
The reason of the error in a former num-
Ger OF our paper in relation to the present
duty on sugar we explained in our last issue,
and it will be useless 10 explain itagain.
That Congress will ever reduce the tariff
on sugar below the present figures, "a per
cent, while Louisiana remains IN the Union,
~e cannot believe. The North wants pro
lection on her iron, coal, and manufacturing
interest which she can never have the face
to claim, while she refuses a Just protection to
Louisiana sugar. The North has usually
been the friend Of s,ch protection, while the
South has opposed it. In cotton planters
are the great o,posers of tariffs and protec-
ton. When they hold the power which de-
sides the fate OF the 1867 sugar planters of
this State, which they never can hold against
the friends of the tariff while in the Union.
will they change their lifetime policy aid
become protecfionists Let the honest reader
answer. Perhaps they will change and ad-
'vocs*e = high tariff.
If all the Southern States secede and form
. Southern Confederacy, and no more sugar
be made in Louisiana, Texas. and
Florida than at present, Southern protection
may possibly save them. But before deciding
this question, We have many facts to weigh.
For twenty-five or thirty years the United
States have usually imported about half of the
sugar they have consumed, aud have made
the other half, The Northern people have
always been p'overbiaIly great consumers of
sugar and molasses. In 1857 New York CITY
imported l61 ,9l2 tons of sugar, equal to
329.772 hhds. OF 100 pounds each. Louisiana
has never but twice made a large, crop than
the amount imported by New York that year.
The same year the consumption of cane sugar
in the United States was $50. 765 tons. equal
to jsl, 739 hhds. In 1856 we consumed
III. z93 hhds. cane sugar.
The South does not consume one-thiri of
the sugar which is yecrly required for the
United States. She needs less than 200. 900 |
hhds. yearly. Her population increases slow
ly, and she will probably not need much more
tina" that amount yearly for the next ten
years. Louisiana has sugar lands. when all
are brought under cultivation. capable Of pro-
large amount more than she now
The production OF sugar in this
State in the last ten years is almost double
that Of the previous ten years. From 1917
to 1857 the aggregate production of cane
sugar in the State was 2.6lS. 600 hhds. From
1897 to ls47 the aggregate production of cane
sugar In the State was l,l33,OOO. Increase ir
tea years, l,lS5,00O.
Suppose a Southern cont.deracy to protect
200 900 hhds. Of Louisiana. Texas, and Flo
rlda sugar, what is to become with the sur.
plus alter the Southern market is y!utted 2 |
And will those planters who have 400 900
Or 100000 hhds. of sugar to sell in a market
but about 200 900 are consumed. OBJ
tain remunerative prices 10, their staple pro-
d%uctlon, even where they are protected 81
he surplus that is not needed in the South
must be sold to the North and West. or ex-
ported to other countries to be sold N CON-
with Cuba and other sugars with no
protection whatever.
II separate secession takes place, which is
The plan favored by the writer of the prec.d-
|ns article, we understand that Texas viii
BE- very likely to remain a separate Govern
nent from the other States. Her reasons
for this are numerous, and, we think. plausi-
bic but we have not time to present them
1t is thought by many that South Ca
rolina will not be satisfied to remain in
Southern Confederacy. 1t is also somewhat
doubtful whether Kentucky, Missouri. Mary
and, Virginia, or even Tennessee, or North
Carol ma, will 60 out of the Union themselves.
None Of these things have yet been satisfac-
orily demonstrated. A sanguine belief. q, a
confident prediction is no proof Of a future
went Aud il but half of the State secede
much good would protection in those
States do the sugar planter? If secession is
. come, Louisiana of all ether States is most
Interested in having the South all 20 to-
,ether; not only on account of her immense
sugar interests, but on account of her posi-.
which commands the mouth of the Miss.
ssippi, which she cannot hold against the
West bV the aid of all tho suDnort tho Son+b