The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1862-12-04

share The profits of dealing in hem. it may not
be- quite sAfe TO say that the South has been
more responsible than the North for its cnntin,
uance 1t, then, for q common object this
property Is to be sacrificed. is it not just that
it be done at common charge? And if with
less money, or money more easily paid, we
can preserve the benefits of the Union by this
means, han We can by the war alone il il
not economical to do IL?
Let Us consider it then; let us ascertain the
-un we have expended in the war since cons
peu7aled emancipation was proposed lss
Ma ch and consider whether. ifthat measur.
had been promptly accepted by even some OF
the slave States,the same sum would not have
doue more to close the war than has been 9TH
wise done. IT so, the measure would save
| money; and in that view would be a prudent
and economical measure, certainly.
II is not 80 easy to pay sume thing as it is Ia
pay nothing, but it Is easier TO pay "a large sum
than larger one.
The aggregate sum necessary for conlpcnsr
TED empancipatiOn, of course would be large.
but would require no ready cash nor bonds
, any faster than the emancipatiOn progresses
This might not and probably would NOT clos
before the ehd of the thirty-Seven years. A
hat time we shall probably have $4,000, 900
people 20 share the burden instead of 81 900.
0Uh rs now, and not ouly so, but the incIea So
OF our population may be expected 70 continue
for long time after the period as rapidly az
b tore. because Gus territories viii not have be
come full At has same ratio of Increase which
we have maintained On al average from our
first national census la 1879 ut.,i 1860, we
sh uld in 1900 have population of 1O3 .2OS, -
415. aDi why may not continue that ra 10
tar beyond that period
Our abundant room, cur broad national
homestead, is ample resource. We're orr
territory "a limited rs are the British isles,
certainty our population could not expand as
stated. Instead of receiving the foreign born
as now we should be compe led to send par
of the native born away, but such is not our
condition We have 963 600 of cquare miles.
Europe has $500, 900 ~quare miles. wlth Pups
utatiOn averaging 1917 persons to he square
mile. Why may not eur country at some time
average as many? Is 1t less fertile? Has it
more waste surface by mountains. rivers, lakes,
deserts and other causes 1t is inferior to Eu-
rope i'll any natural advantage?
If then we are at some time to be as pOpu.
Ious as Europe, how soon? AS to when this
may be, we may judge of the past and present
| as to when, it will ever depend, much on wheth-
er we maintain the Union. Several of our States
are above the average of European popu. alton
| of 734 10 the square mile Massachusetts has
F.! l57, Rhode Island 1873, New York and Neu Jer
sey each 50, also two other great States, Penn
sylvanis and Ohio are not far below, the former
having 63 and the latter SO. The States direct
above the European average, except New York
have increased in as rapid ratio since pass
ing that point as ever before, while no one o
them Is equal TO some other parts of our coun
try in natural capacity for sustaining dense
| population. Taking the ratio in the aggregate
We find it's population and ratio of increase to
| the several decimal periods as follows: