The home journal. (Winchester, Tenn.) 1858-188?, 1866-07-21
NUMBER. 20
Cotton.--Can it Bear a Taxc

The recent consideration ofthe prop.
osition imposing tax Of five cents
pound on cotton, has evoked many in
teresting statements, and much valu-
able information. Contributions on
the subject have been made by men Of
all classes and sections-the Northern
capitalist, merchant and manufacturer,
and the Southern planter. Among the
latter we find in the National Intelligen
Ger, a communication from Milton
Brown, Esq, Of Alabama, who says
correctly that great mistake prevails
in the North with reference to the
profits Of cotton planting and the pow
er ofcotton to stand taxation. Cotton
can no more stand taxation than corn
and wheat, or any other product Of the
soil. Labor, if left alone, will engage
in whatever is found to return the best
compensation. The present price of
cotton is due chiefly to the fact that the
supply is not equal to the demand.
The system Of production being dis.
organized, it follows asa matter ofna.
tional Importance that labor should be
sent back to the cotton fields as rapib-
Iy as possible Taxing cotton simply
because it bears Il high price is obvious
ly as unwise as it would be to tax corn
when there has been failure of the
crops, or to tax pork because the chol
era may have reduced the number Of
hogs.
The average nett profit from capital
invested in the cultivation Of cotton for
years before the war, was less than four
per cent Southern wealth accrued,
therefore, not from raising cotton, but
from raising negroes. A negro girl
married at fourteen, would by the time
she was thirty, have children worth five
or six thousand dollars, while her labor
and that Of her husband would more
than support the family. This increase
was fully equal to ten per cent, and it
was this which made up the largest por
ton Of the apparent or delusive income
of the South. In proof of this ma
jority of planters did no more by their
crops than pay their annual expenses.
Some even failed to do this, and were
forced to sell one or more negroes
every year to settle balances against
them. Yet, by the rapid growth of ne
groes, the convertible value oftheir cs-
tates was constantly increasing. From
these facts it will be observed that the
two sources Of income so very distinct
from each other, were naturally con
founded in the public mind. The plan
ter said to be worth Il hundred thous'
and dollars had the credit OF making 1t
by raising cotton, when in truth, he
made it by raising negroes.
Now to the main question. Slavery
being abolished, cotton stands alone.
Labor being unreliable, what are likely
to be the profits of cotton raising under
the new condition ofthings? The an
swer may be given in a sentence. The
profits will not be greater separated
from theincrease and growth OF ne
grocs than the profits made on wheat
corn, mules, cattle, etc, in the free
States. Hence, cultivated by labor, as
it must be, the staple thus produced
will bear no more taxation in the South
than equivalent articles produced by
free labor at the North. The imposi
ton ofsuch tax before the war could
not have been borne, much less now
when white men and women have gone
into the fields to supply the.2places Of
freedmen who refuse to work. Finally
in the language of Mr.. Brown, we
"pray God that an American Congress
may never establish the principle ofim-
posing taxes on any agricultural pro.
duct received from the bosom of our
mother earth AS the reward Of shonest
labor ...