New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-09-30

than upon their Southern associates
What will those who contend for reor-
ganization of the Confederate South say
when We affirm and prove that these
Southern States are not allies of each
other, but that they are antagonists and
rivals?
We explained some days since that Mr..
Jefferson Davis was in error when he
affirmed the unity of the Mississippi val
ley in respect to its European trade. We
affirmed that this trade has been carried
across to Eastern outlets, and that each
of these outlets is the rival of the 1Iissis-
sippi outlet at New Orleans. We have
noted the fact long since that the Eastern
ports of New York. Philadelphia, Balti-
more, Norfolk aud Savannah gave an
opposing vote to the bill for improving
the Mississippi outlet We have on our
table an essay from Mr.. Forney's Press,
of Philadelphia, treating the jetty i'm
provement with much indifference
and claiming that government aid
should rather be given to the
railroads which cross the rivers
than to the rivers themselves. The
votes Of all the Southern cities have been
cast against the the Mississippi outlet i'm.
provement at the cost Of the government,
because each Of these cities is contending
for the same trade. We noted last year
the opposition vote of Virginia to the
canal, because a leading Representative of
that State in Congress had been under
stood to promise his support to that work,
but we explained the position of that State
by the fact that it has two lines of railroad
tapping the Mississippi valley at Memphis
and the valley of the Ohio at a point on
the Ohio river. We add also that Virginia
has an application pending before Congress
! for canal over the lifts Of the Allegheny
mountains, and connecting the waters of
the Ohio with those of the Chesapeake.
The Bulletin, however, is taken by sur
prise at the opposition of Senator John
ston, of Virginia, to an appropriation to
the Pacific railroad. Senator Johnston
is an early friend of the Virginia railroad
which connects Memphis with Norfolk.
His patron and relative, John W. Floyd,
was protector Of that work. and it is
intended to contend for the Pacific trade.
The Bulletin says:
That an organized opposition should
in Stata nd hot
State the magnanimous old commonwealth
of Virginia, against a traDs-cOntinental
Southern line of railway which could not
fail to benefit the whole body of Southern
States, Virginia included seems to us not
little strange.
A review of the railroad system of the
United States will correct the idea that
Opposition in Virginia to our road is not
native to Virginia, but it is plea manufac.
tured elsewhere, and put on the Virginia
market.
1t is no Northern plan but part of
that system of transportation by which
Virginia is now taking the cotton from
Memphis and the -four from Cincinnati,
and combining these cargoes in the port
of Norfolk. 1t is Southern theory, but
it is not Mississippi theory Virginia is
contending for commercial ascendency in
conducting the Mississippi trade and she
may be expected to oppose any work of
improvement which will tend to carry
that trade elsewhere than TO her own sea
port of Norfolk.
We have explained to Mr.. Davis that
the valley Of the SIississippi-and, we
may add, the basin of the lakes-is di-
vided by latitudinal trade zones, but that
the valley and basin are unit as to the
longitudinal lines to and beyond the
tropics. The old South is forever divided
and has joined other alliances. That
"the magnanimous old commonwealth of
Virginia" should regard the ties of the
Confederate league rather than the chance
| of securing the trade of the Mississippi
and Pacific, may surprise our contempo-
rary, but to us it appears but the logical
development of new commercial in
terest.