New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-08-02


It was 1850 years In other words these states
have lost quarter OF century, -,
-- EMANCIPATION NOT THE CAUSE.
Does any one imagine that the Of war or the
emancipation Of slaves has caused this destruction OF
valuesi Let him then consider Maryland, in which the
value of farms In 1850 s4soOoOoo and In 1870 had
risen TO s70OOOOO) Delaware, In which the value in
1850 $s1 10000 and had risen in 1870 TO si60ooo
and Missouri in which the value In 1869 3OO0Oo0o
and in 1870 had risen 10 s392 100000 What other State.
except perhaps Virginia more harried and torn by
conendng armies than Missouri Did any other state
warfare brother against brother, and father against
SON Wns there not slave labor in Missouri before the
war and were not 4SSl slaves there emaneipa.t,esaI
600 600. What has caused toe loss elsewheref
Missouri has increased nearly % per cent ~ tne area
since 1860 But the thirteen States have lost nearly
64e360 and in 1870 only 576lSs7 acres TINS
is not the only loss Nearly 300O)0OO acres OF unlm
proved land included IN farms IN iS6o are 70 Snges
IN these thirteen States has decreased nearly oheAln
Nor is this abandonment Of land due to any decrease
i'm the laborinC population The number both OF whites
aud OF coOred people has increased IN spite OF tne Vss
b. and the immigration Of population larger man
that OF Kansas. either OF six smaller states IN tov
with 100000 Inhabitants, these states cultivated %
acres TO eac person. In 1870 with 100000 nhaD
tans they cultivate only FIVE acres to eaeh pnrr sTm
More than One-1h OF the entire population VI "Vin"e
age must therefore be Idle.
VALUE OF LANDS PER ACRE.
Ascertainng from census reports OF value OF iarin
lands and number OF the average value per acre.
improved and unimproved and reducing the values ior
1870 TO gold comparison with those OF 1851 we may
form some estimate the loss other than In the num-
her OF acres occupied The loss in the average value
per acre was in Virginia and West Virginia 81 80 or 20
per cent? in Kentucky 81 H. or II per CENT; III az @
Gems 9T ~ - a. or 20 per cent in North Carolina,
81 a. per cent; in Georgia y 81 or 40 per cent a
DER cent; in Mississippi, s. OIL 50 per cent IN Louis
ana s3 80 or 60 per cent; and IN south taro % 90
vpi,oPrayed indicate an enormous depreciation the
actual value per acre of improved lands Meanwhile,
according 10 the test the average IN MISSOURI mas
risen s. per acre. nearly 80 per cent III gOd Vdue'
IMPLEMENTS AND STOCK
In 1860 the value of farm implements in the 10 States
was $50 $4,000 In gold In 1870 il was only s5s2l23O in
currency; OF more than onehalf Yet the cost OF
implements generally advanced SO that the number
in use in these States must have diminished more than
one-half Meanwhile in Delaware Maryland, and Mis-
sonri the value OF farm implements has increased
SsSOOOO0 currency In 1860 the Is states had 2O99i
horses in 1870 the number had decreased IN every state
except Texas, and was but 1.795,459 Meanwhile the
number IN Delaware, Maryland, and Missouri had In,
from 10000 TO 6ooCO In 1850 the u states nad
in every OF these States and was only l5i6S26 te
more than onehaf In South Carolina the number was
ony oneourth as large in Tennessee less than
one-haf, Ia Virginia and Texas less than oDe-tenth.
What is the meaning of loss OF nine-tenths of all the
mSeh cows in a STATED Meanwhile the number had
largely increased in each OF the border STATES space
does not serve for other comparisons the aggregate
value of all live stock in the 10 States 1860 $780,
Ga s in gold and in 1870 only sS5647 currency
loss i'm gold value OF nearly 40 per cent With
ing population the supply of meat has decreased for,
scarcity having causld the price OF meats 10 DO uSh
Ea animals io was M oniy ssgsssS in currency
against value III 1860 OF S95,Sl6,24S IN gold
DECREASE IN CROPS RAISED.
II may be supposed the decline in agriculture In
these States only to the diminished production OF
the few great crops formerly raised mainly by slave labor
But statistics show general decrease in products We
find comparing the crops of 1860 and 1870 not only
loss of 100000 bales of cotton, but of 100000 pounds
of woo only loss of 7OOOOOO pounds Of tobacco,
5OOO0O0 pounds of butter-oneourth OF the pro
ductOn in 1s60and $4,000 pounds of cheese not only
loss of I67000OO0 pounds Of sugar and 60OOOOO gallons
onehaif of the crop Of 1860 those States only
loss Of 100000 pounds Of rice tot sOO0 bushels OF
wheat 100000 bushels OF rye, 10000 tons OF hay 5000
tons of hemp and 900 bushels OF cora In view OF
decrease in production so general and 80 startling Is ~
half the wealth of great agricultural States has
vanished and that onethirteth OF the entire popua-
and so cursed by manf
CAUSES OF PRosTRATIoN
It's plain that this prosraOn of industry cannot be
sscrbed to the and destruction of war; for it has
been greatest in States where the injury inflicted by
war was least No ravages of explain the loss Of
values of live stock and of products South Carolina.
Alabama and other States Neither 1t be ascribed
10 the change in the system OF labor alone, for in the
border states and especially in missouri we md re-
narkabe progress and prosperity instead of decline ana
proration In the border States, If colOred labor has
efficiency,
made up by immigration Tweny-thr per cent OF the
population OF Maryland, and "a per cent OF the popa
ton of Missouri is OF foreign BIRTH But some cause has
virtually excluded immigration from the other Southern
states. louisiana indeed, has IL per cent including
of French and spanish bood but Texas has but ~
er cent Kentucky but H. West Virginia but TO- Florida
bur per cent and other State OF the South has TO
Southern States are thus left largely dependent
cOl0Ied labor aud While the number OF cOoreu persons
has increased that, with equal efficiency OF labor,
much larger production that OF 1860 might have
expected there has been an enormous decline ia
therefore first those influences which have diverted
eoOred people irou productive Industry and second,
which not only capital aud immigration from without
have repealed butthe labor OF the most industrious
aud enterpFlsing has been deprived OF fair reward
CoLoRED PEOPLE, THRoNGISG TO THE TOWNS.
Some glimpse of one cause Of these great losses may
be found IN columns of figures in the
reports which tell us of the population with and
color Of "civ divisions less than counties" 1t is
true the very general change in civil divisions in South
ern States since 1860 and the impossbity In
OF separating the colored from the white population In
the returns that year, prevent that thorough
parison OF the population Of towns which alone could
July disclose a change noticed by observer But
the returns nevertheless suffice for comparison as to ia
OF the most important towns IN the formerly slave
holding states and in these towns the coored popua-
ton 232S37 and IN 1870 IL was 1905 1t is
heen more than 100 per cent while the general increase
of tie colored population has been barely 10 per cent
a quarter OF million OF colored persons, more
than one-sixteenth OF the enure slave pOpnla-
!
try when their labor most sorely needed, and
dred into these towns entirely II similar comparison
were possible for all towns in these States, how large
loss OF agricultural labor would then be discOsedf In
the enumeration Of the above, fourteen towns from
States not of the thirteen under consideration have
been purpOsey included in order 10 show that this
tendency does not operate only in those States In which
Inc oolored people be supposed 10 have sought the
cities for protection. Ever SINCE the war they have
been as safe in Missouri as IN York; yet in the
ten chief towns In Missouri the eolored population has
increased from 500 TO S9374 III four towns in Mary
land from 3l4Gl TO 4illl ana I'D wilmington Der, from
l32 20 32ll. Deductng these, have for ninetynne
tow rs in the thirteen Southern States Washington in
cnde colored population OF i9O645 Ia 1850 ana 1884,
In 1910. From cause the Increase Is much greater
L. atnrIl GNn