The hydraulic press., 1861-08-17
Southern Products.


Southern products. We have neither had
the time nor the opportunity of comparing
the figures with the census returns, but are
willing to concede they are all right The
South, it will be seen, has immense resources.
derived chiefly from the productiveness of
her soil; although this fact was previously
so well known, that it hardly required illus
tration. And yet, with this conceded source
of wealth at command, it does not follow
that she is able to contend successfully in
her rebellion against the General Govern
ment. Tantalus is represented as standing
in water up to his chin, in famishing con-
dition, and yet unable to drink. With her
ports blockaded, her internal trade cut off,
her soil neglected and lying idle, her pecun-
iary means exhausted, without the ability to
replenish her exchequer-she has but few of
those necessary elements to carry her sue
cessfully through such revolution as that
in which she is engaged:
Agricultural Resources of the South.
Since the commencement of the war,
much has been said about starving out the
South. The following, taken from the COL
umns of the Baltimore Sun, will give the
reader some idea of the resources of the
South. A correspondent writing to that
paper says:
ave find everybody, almost, entertaining
the mistaken notion (Which | find in the
London Times of the Sd inst, too-but don't
wonder at it, since it gets its information
from the North) that the Northern States
are, and the Southern States are not, pro-
ducing States. There never was greater
mistake. With your consent | will call
public attention to some striking and inter-
esting facts in this connection to show that
the 6ugbear of starving out the South
and cutting off supplies &C., may be said
with ease, but done with much difficulty.
81 will select first South Carolina to run
the parallel with, for several reasons, the
chief of which are that she has been sup
posed to produce nothing but cotton and
rice, and she is the most derided and con-
temned of all the slaveholding States. Not
many persons are aware that this State
alone produces nearly Jfve-si1ths of all the
rice grown, but the seventh census of 1850
shows that to be the fact; besides nearly all
the rice, she produces wheat to within 3 600
bushels of all produced by the six New
England States together. She produces
almost as much corn as the State of New
York, and 100000 of bushels of that grain
more than all the New England States to-
gether, for she produced upwards of l6,o0O,-
900 of bushels. She produced me.e oats
than Maine; more by l,ooo.nHJ bushels than
Massachusetts; more t.nan 900, 900 of BUSH
els OF potatoes over and above what Maine
produced, more beans and peas by 10000
, bushels than all the Northern States to-
gether, except New York; more beef cattle
than Pennsylvania by l,740, and almost as
many as all the New England States to-
gether; more sheep than Iowa and Wiscon-
sin by l0,699; more hogs than New York by
47,25l more than Pennsylvania by 25,l37,
and $4,000 more than all the New England
States, with New Jersey, Michigan, Wiscon-
sin and California in the bargain more
horses and mules by 10000 than Maine, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island
together; besides all which she produces
largely of oxen, COWS, and variety Of pro-
duets of the smaller kinds.
Virginia and North Carolina produced
Jointly l3 3,363, ,05O bushels of wheat, or 24l,-
600 more than the great wheat State OF New
York, or quantity equal to the whole pro-
duct of the six New England States, with
New Jersey, Michigan, Iowa and Wisconsin,
all put together. Virginia, North Carolina
and Tennessee produced lis, All ,593 bushels
of corn, a quantity exceeding by 100000
bushels the joint product OF New York, Penn
sylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and
Maine.
Tennessee alone produced 1896 more
| hogs than all the six New England States,
with New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Iowa and Michigan, for that State produced
| 3,l04,S0 hogs, while the eleven Northern
States named produced but 3,O8s,394. Most
people have thought that the North was
really the hog producing section, but such
| is BY no means the fact-the whole number
of hogs produced in 1850, was 3O,3l6, 6,60S-
of which the slaveholding States furnished
20,770,730 or more than two-thrds of the
whole swine production.
1t will doubtless surprise many persons to
be told that the seven gulf or cotton States
of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Flor
! ida Mississippi Louisiana and Texas, pro-
duced 45, 1877 more beef cattle than the six
New England States, New York, Pennsyl-
vania, Ohio, New Jersey, Indiana, Michigan
and Wisconsin, altogether; but such is the
A
these seven cotton States produced ), ,357 ,4S9
| beef cattle, while the thirteen Northern
States named produced but {, 3,3l2,327.
A single glance at the live stock columns
of the seventh census will prove to the in
quirer that the slaveholding States produced
more beef cattle than the non-slaveholding
by 1,782,587. That while the North pro-
duced 3,541,121 cows, the South produced
2.s29,8l0. That the Northern States pro-
duced S66,397 work oxen, against S20,340
produced by the Southern States. That
while the North produced 2,3lo,962 horses
and mules-the South produced 259,35s
more, for the Southern production was 2,-
570,320.
In conclusion, as people have been so
much in the habit of conceding superiority
to the North, in these and other points of
view, maybe the above statements may be
doubted; if so, refer the skeptical to the
seventh census Of lS50-the last date we