Abbeville press. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1860-1869, 1869-08-20
TIE QUESTION OF LABOR AT THE
SOUTH.

! The FLec!,:" presents 4 svuo"sis
"t tAe opposing views on this sub
,.irct, which arc set i;:nh in too ar
i'iclvs in ,hc July lumbcr of De-
Bows Review.
"Under the head of f',Sc;;cpcc a,ni
;nc Wcc/'u"ic -Aits Gwsust Coolirs,"
the writer gives the argument
against the Chinese. AS regards
col!s;icr&tloIJ p',litical and snvi;,',
ilc assumes that no one would wish
to import Asiatics. From them
we could not have amalganution
with ourselves in sentiment, in in
;,crcst, in destiny. lie then con-
!sldcrs the remaining inducc,ncnt-
!hat the South needs additional lu-
Dor. On this subject the writer
makes the point HAT the effect
l"i an Increased number Of labor
crs would he TO clcaprn cotton, for
t!ic benefit Of the Northcr., and
Ei::opcan manufactures rather than
Of thc S"u;h. Ilr contends that
! the Southern pc0l.lc aro ncw ma
king double as mHcl; money as for
! merry by the culture of staples.
with half the laborers formerly cm-
ploycd. This being the case, he
suggests that TO increase our man.
H!actnrcs would he better 1Ean to
augment our agricultural force.
/" illustrate the proposition Say
that the present value Of c5tton
and s" Gar is $50, 100000 al specie.
; Is it not y better system to convert
/ cotton into clo,l.s anil to refine ST.
I oar. and thus double. their values,
than to rely upon added agr-cultu-
raj labor alone t1 keep up onr cs-
/ ported values and our domestic
/: prosperity? Is it not better TO get
more manufactures and lnechan-
lr:, than to get more agricultural
: l"horrrs! Is It not better to get the
SAXON army Of artisans than the
; A*i"tic horde Of field hands :?
! These views deserve consideration.
! The writer next proceeds to argue
that, whilst for moral and political
reasons the introduction Of Asiat,c
labor would be unwisc. the ccoiom-
zeal, lhGustrious expectation Of
!t!l"so wilo advocate il will not be
realized. JIc contends that coolic
labor here cannot compete with
coo|ic Labor in India; that to make
more cotton "md sugar would be
to c!,capcn the rates OF these sta
piles for the benefit Of the North
crn and European consumer, AT the
cost, TO us, Of domestic peace and
security. In fine the writer sur-
costs that we look to other lncans
than cotton, and sugar. and
rice, to accomplish our rcdcinp-
tion and bnild up onr pos
pcrity. Why make everything
hinge upon increasing the number
of cotton bales, and hog>hcads Of
sugar, and ticrccs Of rice, 10 the
neglect of the loom and the un,.il {?
II, he pcrt'ncntly asks, the South
crn people have all the clements
tor manufacture in their midst, all
the facilities for commerce in their
ports, why should they be restric-
ted, to cultivate cotton aud sugar
for the rest Of the world, or WIN
should the rest of the world secure
cheap cotton "nd sugar by making
the South the Botany Bay of Asia
and Africa? The query is poin-
ted. So much for one side of this
great question:"
]. But the writer will scarcely as
spme the ground, that no more la
Dor is needed at the South. Ills
argument seems ia he directed en-
.tlrc'y at the lnisdifcction of labor
IN bringing about Az increased pro-
dpetlon OF the Southern Staples,
and thus glut,ing the market and
lreducing the prices. To this cxr
Eto1 Etent the argument may be entirely
Legitimate, but it is no argument nj
against Hag the importation Of labor,
which ls required to meet the uni
lSSersl necessities, Of capital we
|ased fI labor el'y atta ct the IS ,,sauth,' rot 80
fssFshh ffnsspeh to ton make more cotton, rice or
sugar butte develop all Of our re- re-
soprsses, som agricultural, and material.
Ard And why may not; Chipese labor,
|3.ssp asap eufficient-tho pagt attaip5aIie
the aamost aeeonomicpl, :, the most
!skilkpl and effective, even even inr.ttIo irtI
deyelopemcnt of our manufactures =?