New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1861-11-28
TEfE RIGHT lEIEY.S

Speaking of the crops along the seaboard, which
sre more Or less exposed to incursions from Lin
coins naval hordes, the Charleston Mercury says:
Many millions Of people in England are, directly
and indirectly, dependent upon cotton for a living
The absence of cotton from the mills, produced by
the permitted blockade Of our ports, must, in no
long time, throw out of employment a vast number
OF employees, not only in the mills, but in all the
raRifeatioHs of trade dependent upon cotton and
its manufactured fabrics The effect on capitalists
business men and bankers will not be small. This
distress and embarrassment is likely to enter into
politics with no insignificant weight. IT may and
will decide the fate of cabinets and administrations.
And tho pressure will urge the procuring Of cot
ton, to do which is necessary to raise the block
ade--a blockade never yet legal and effective.
With the opening of oar ports under this species
OF commercial necessity, all our real difficulties
will disappear. The war will lose its troublesome
features, In financiaAand business point of view
becoming only an employment for our young men
along the border. while we may plant and sell and
buy as heretofore. 81
Thus much we have said, to show the hope Of
peace nom keeping back our cotton while this
blockade lasts, and to renew our suggestions about
the Importance of preventing, at any sacrifice
this indispensable product from falling into the
hands of our foes 1t will be used for their relief
and our detriment. Every bag that gets into their
clutches is an argument to European nations to
rely upon the North for supplying the necessities
OF their mills, and to save themselves the trouble
Of doing us Justice in the matter of the illegal
pavShaues Ssusu we alloW fne North TO succeed III
THIS attempt on the coast of South Carolina ?
Shall we permit foreign nations to play into the
hands OF onrE foes, by Recognizing an Ineffective
hlockade as good, and to procure our property,
which they need through these foes
IL is a question to which but one answer can be
given, consistently with the great cause Of South
4 ern independence question to which, however
great the cost Carolinians in their patriotic devo-
4 ton, viii give but one answer. It is better to
destroy than to give up the crops to our enemies
Yes-"it is better to destroy than to give up the
crops to our enemies The destruction Of the
crops will infet no larger loss upon the planters
than would their capture by the Abolitionists
There IS but this difference between capttre and
the proposed destruction. flour enemies get pos
session OF any amount Of cotton the planters lose
to that extent, and they are benefited. But, If the
cotton is destroyed by its rlghful owners the loss
will be precisely the same, while our relentless
foes VIII derive no advantage. For instance had
the planters of the islands in the vicinity Of Port
Royal, when it became apparent that the enemy IS
attacking squadrons could not be successfully re-
sisted, burned their cotton, and not permitted a
lake Of it to fall into the hands Of the invaders,
their peeuniary status would have been the same
that it now is, and the Yankees could not boast
over the acquisition of several hundred bales of
valuable cotton. @3 fsT ~ E%@1e7} H5eNt ~