The Athens post. [volume] (Athens, Tenn.) 1848-1917, 1863-01-30

l
included) and manufacturing capital. Tc
facilitate the computation, however We
shall select, instead of all the counties oi
every State, only those four counties in
each State which present the largest ag
gregates Of wealth. Such computation
diseloscs the following facts set forth in
the following table:
Wealth per capita
snles -Four wealthiest in Farms 4 Manu-.
counties. featuring capital
Louis'ana-As seenson, Assumption, Pla-
:, qumincs ibervillc, sl,59s
ksntueky-Fayctte, Shelby, Bourbon,
Scott zzg
sotih Carolina-Charleston Georgetown,
klgeGeld, Beaufort. aga
AessAsma-- Dallas q rcene. Marenro. Mont
,gomery,. 45l
Ni's'''ippi-Marshall, Washington, Mon
roe. adams I49
NiTginla-Loudoun, Augusta, Fauquir,
Rockingham, 4Ie
observation-disclosures, Chester, Berks,
Z u lHiEsEaeEE. gpg
eestsia-- hcaa5ln, Monroe, Barke, stew
art $50
NesJersey- Hunlerdon, Burlington, Mon
mouth, Sussex, 3TQ
Aaryland-Frederck, Washington, Anne
Arundel. Prince George, 355
Missouri-Platte Howard, Lafayette, Clay, 322
Forida-Leon, Gadsden, Jefferson, Madi-
ison, BIS
characterization, Williamson, Giles,
Rutherford, SOC
New York-Dutchess, Monroe Westches
ter, Orange, 30i
Connecticut Hartford, Fairfield, Litch-
field, New Haven, 27t
Vermont-Windsor, Rutland, Addison,
Windham, 26t
Indiana-Wayne, Rush, Franklin, Tip
peeanOe, 25z
Arkansas -Chicot, Phillips, Jefferson,
Washington, 242
NewHampshire-R Rockingham, Hillsboro'
Grafton, Merrimac, 2lC
Texas II arison, Brazoria, Cherokee, Wash
ingtOn. 23l
Massachusetts-Worc ,Middles'x, Nor
folk, Essex, 22S
0ho-Hamilton, Butler, Wayne, Warren, 22S
Rhode Island--Providence Newport,
Washington, Kent, 24O
Michigan Oakland, Washtenaw, Jackson,
Lewanee 200
North Carolina-Edgecomb Sampson,
Wake, Wayne, 1888
Adams, Fulton,
Morgan, l62
Wisconsin-Ro Walworth, Wankeba,
Dodge, 1862
Mane-York, Cumberland, Kennebec,
Lincoln, 146
Iowa--Lee, Van Buren, Des Moines, Eenry, l2O
SUMMARY.
Wealth per capita in farms and manufac-
turing capital of the free inhabitants
of the four weathiest counties of the
above mixed labor States, 424
Wealth per capita of farms and manufac-
- H.. ;.l,
OF four wealthiest counties Of the above
white labor States, 252
The whole country Is a commentary on
this truth. The State of Kentucky ex-
hibits these facts The slave population
of Kentucky was but % per cent. of the
entire population Of the State tor % per
cenW OF the white population;) conse-
ouens.y, while It's wealth s much inieri-
or y-that Of States in which the slave
popuiation is mtg ger, il exceeds, PER capita,
that Of Ohio, more than fifty per cent
In q sarge portion of the State, however,
th-ogt sng not over three per cent. of
slave, there is n similar condition to that
of Ohio; and the poorer half of Kentucky
counties were about on par with the
average of Ohio. But in the seven coun-
ties which have the largest population Of
slaves l43.6per cent. J, Woodford, Fayette.
Bourbon, Scott, Shelby, Clarke, and
CHRISTIAN. the value of the farms, SAG, 224.-
429 is 1926 per CAPITA while in the l8
counties having the smallest proportion
of slaves, (32 per cent. the value of the
farms per capita is only 800, which is
very little better than the eight poorest
q nh;o IN ,ul,;nh fha ualtn pf
the farms was but S76pe capita.
Throughout the mixed labor States,
the burthens of Government, education,
&C., are chiefly supported by those coun-
ties which have liberal supply of slave
labor. In Kentucky. for example, the
eighteen white labor counties counties
which had but 80 per cent. of slaves
don't pay enough taxes to meet their own
expenses. On the contrary, they are
burden upon the mixed labor counties
to the amount lin 1860 of Sj8, l6S 78 per
annum. At the same time the seven
leading mixed labor counties, having
about the same aggregate of population,
and but about six .tenths as many whites,
pay into the State Treasury, above their
own expenses Sl52, 27l Al per anrum.
There is nothing speculative or uncer-
tain in the vast aggregates of wealth pro-
duced by slave labor II is an inexhaust-
ible fountain of wealth. the annual ag-
ricultural production Of the mixed labor
States forms a greater aggregate of value
than the agricultural productions of the
whole white labor States, with twice the
of white laborers. 1t may,
be justly affirmed that agricul-
ture in the mixed labor States is far more
to the citizens, in proportion
to the number, than the agriculture of
the free labor States. Without running
a complete parallel we may glance at the
Z, <,sLlS=ging,lcading products, which indi-
cate, as far as they go that the people IN
the mixed labor State, derived from agri-
culture twice rs large returns, in proper
tion to their free population, as those Of
tho free labor States, which had twice as
many whites.
10 mixed labor Horses Bushels
States inclnd. Mules Corn aud
inc District Of Asses. Cattle. Hogs. Wheat.
1850 S,'' 1,5sO,Oc5 O,7sis5o 2o,5o7,93 37G,96s2ol
1G white labor ...
States. 2Sss0S S4oi''v" s'oOoVo' olo,''oioo
Excess IN n.
49, ~ " o7o o07 Q5o O57 # 9Of oi5 681021sl