The Oxford intelligencer., 1861-03-06
OXFORD, MISS, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1861.

of either furnish the chief mental and physical
employment of man in all the ramfcatons of
his social relation. The nation, therefore which
adopts an inductive system that brings into op-
erat on those three distinct divisions of industry,
opens wide field for the employment of the
capital and labor Of its citizens and becomes
prosperous and rich. Our State however, pos
sessing in an eminent degree every requisite for
attention to these various interests, has relinquis
ed to considerable extent, two of them, to-wit I;
commerce $50 far as foreign importations are
concerned) and manufactures, to the capital and
/ labor of other States-thus placing means ofin-
creasing personal and national wealth in their
power, but which a judicious and wise policy
would retain at home To illustrate this idea,
take for example pound of cotton, for what is
true with regard to one, is equally correct as to
all. The national wealth has been increased the
estimated value (say ten cents) through the
agency of the producer. This raw material is
practically valueess unless converted into fab
rc for the use of man, by the application Of addi
tional capital and labor. What reason can be
assigned why that should not find employment
in the industry and energy of our own people?
And why should not the increased value of the
manufactured article result to the benefit of our
own State2 But mark the folly of our short
sighted and impolitic course. We suffer this raw
material to be transported in the vessels of other
States; converted into six or seven yards of cal
leo, worth ten cents per yard-it is again re-
l. ila,, III,
benefit of the carrying trade both ways, when
returned il has been enhanced in value six or
seven hundred pei cent, or in palmer terms, the
planter is compelled to give six or seven pounds
of the same raw material in exchange for this
one pound, which has become so much more
valuable by the employment of the capital and
labor of others.
If converted into lighter and more costly fab
RIGS, the inequality in valuation is still more
apparent Where has the difference between
The value of the raw material and the manuiac-
tured article gone, and who, we would ask, has
reaped greater profits from the use of capital
and labor, the producer or the manufacturer p
Why should've not adpot morcjudcious course
of naustry-avail ourselves Of these benefits
and add to our personal and national wealth by
exporting the cotton fabric instead of the raw
materially Our personal interest and a wise po-
litiral economy both urge upon us systematic
change of policy in this matter. Yet such is our
cagcrness to produce cotton, we lose sight of
these advantages and suffer them as before sta
ted to pass into other hands.
We come now to con siIer the second error in
the agricultural policy ofour planters, and which
is more particularly embraced in the design Of
the resolution of the Convention.
We refer to the fact tiat whilst engaged so cX-
tcnsivcly in the production Of cotton, furnishing
as shown, such benefits to tle capital and labor
Of other States, we have also in great degree
become dependant upon their labor for many ar
ticcs of food, that could successfully be raised
in our own States. Why is this? DO they pos
sess climate and soil better adapted to the cul
ture Of breadstuiIs than our own? ? Or do they
possess energy and agricultural intelligence su-
pcrior to ourselyes2 Candor compels a mega
tive answer. Experience has taught us that our
climate and soil viii compare fayorably with any
country for orrcaringall the material products both
animal and vegetable used hy man, for food
Neither are the planters Of Mississippi deficient
in energy and agricultural skill and knowledge
to insure them eminent success in their yocations.
The answer to the inquiry is found alone in that
mistaken system and opinion already mentioned
that in the culture Of cotton, to the neglect Of
all else, consists their principal interest Per-
nit US concisely to analize this opinion and pre-
sent to your minds its fallacy.
Whatever is applicable to an individual in the
management of his domestic affairs, is equally
tru. in the political economy Of nations. The in
diydual head of family could not be said to be
in sate of advancing prosperity,who consumes
annually as much as he produces, and the rule
applies with equal force, whether the articles
consumed wrce the products of his own labor or
obtained by the exchange Of a staple commod-
ity.
There must be some excess of annual produc-
ton over consumption to DC added TO a common
fund or the labor and vigor Of youth and man
hood are expended to little purpose, leaving no
accumulation for the support Of himself and
family during the infirmities and decrcpitude of
age We repeat then--the automatic statement
that Il Is imtnateriai what is the nature charac
ter Of the article produced so FAR as respects his
pcc1niary progress, if it viii require the entire
expenditure Of the same tosupply articles Of food
The wise and judicious man viii husband well
his resources and watch closely his expenditures
as the clicf agencies in diminishing or augment
ing his wealth
The first important consideration that address
es itself to his Judgment, If his mind reasons at
all, would be to expendin the first place, so much
labor as will be necessary to provide food, lcav-
ing the balance for accumulation. Sound reas-
oning would convince him that all such articles
Of food, as could be raised at home would cost
him less time and labor than those that had to
be transported from abroad, for the time and
labor Of conveyance, to say nothing of other
expenses would be lost to him A strict econo-
my would therefore teach him to raise his pro
visions himself and rely only on his surplus
productions for accumulation.
The same rule applies with similar force to the
economy Of nations. There is no greater error
than to suppose that the sum total of a nations