The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1872-02-20
COLUMBIA. s. c..
Tues ay Morning. February 20 1879.

Tues ay morning, February 20 1879.
The Union man, in his issue OF yester-
day. changes front, or-more strictly
speaking-desertsa altogether the grounds
he had assumed, for the purpose OF
persuading the ''hard. handed" farmera
Of South Carolina that they were
burdened with but feathers weight Of
taxation, compared to their more un-
fortunate brethren of the North. Then
he maintained, and attempted to prove by
facts and figures. that cotton planter
of South Carolina paid only tax OF ten
cents on every 1922 so Of income, while
at the same rate Of taxation grain
grower Of the North, or one engaged in
stock md dairy farm. would pay thirty
five cents on seven dollars This state
ment We proved to be grossly incorrect,
by showing, first, that the proportion of
land under cultivation was vastly less in
South Carolina than at the North; and,
secondly. that the cost of the cultivati
Of one acre OF cotton exhausted almost
the whole of the gross profits, which the
fguratipe genius of the Union terms in
come. Yesterday he 'fings up the
SPONGE" and confesses his inability to
sustain the issue which he himself had
raised, as mentioned above, by spring
ing side ISSUE He wants to know why
it is that,
"In New York and other Aonrishing
States in the North, almost every acre
OF ground is made productive, while in
OF our area is under cultivation"
This. he takes from the article in the
PHOENIX. He can't deny the truth of the
assertion, nor can he escape its force. in
exposing his Misrepresentation. He
resorts, therefore. to that mode of an
swering an argument for which his
eountrymen are proverbial, by asking a
question, "why is this" thus2 We will
answer the question, illogical and utterly
irrelevant though it be: What avails it
to inquire Why four-fifths OF our area is
anonltivated? No causes that we may
possibly assign, can furnish grounds for
an increase OF taxation such as the Union
desires; nor can they serve to relieve
that sheet OF the infsny CT having made
false representations. in order to mislead
the people. aud particularly the more
ignorant portion of the Legislature,
that the desired increase Of taxation may
be secured. But to the question: The
reason why go small proportion Of our
area is under cultivation, is simply that
the great body of land in South Carolina
was possessed by wealthy slave-owners,
in large tracts. They we're rioh-lands
were not high-taxes were low, and it
suited their fancy so to invest their sur
plus funds. They cultivated just so
much as they saw fit, and when the soil
became worn, either cleared some of
their own woodlands. or bought addi-
tional acres. In the central and upper
part OF the State, the great source of
profit was the incrense OF slaves, and not
the crops that were grown. A man that
made his farm pay the expenses of cloth
ing. feeding and providing medical
services to his slaves, and give himself
and familya comfortable support. would
grow rich rapidly enough from the natu-
,al increase of his slave property. This
method Of acoumulating wealth, what
ever may be said against it, certainly Sc
cured in great measure kind and hu-
mane treatment to those who were then
slaves. 1t paid best, too-and paid
well-and that is answer sufficient, in a
business point Of view.
Letter from MIR. Edwin j. SCOTT.