THE FARMERS' REGISTER. 



359 



had been lees hardy, less tenacious of its hold, 

 nainr^^ would have efl'ecied its desirucrion at an 

 earlier period. As ii is, ii required three years lo 

 arconiplisii it. Bur what are three years or liiree 

 thous iiid years in the account ol nature ? Green- 

 sward on the other hand is a natural trrass. It 

 is one o( nature's cro|js, and one ol ihe uses which 

 she mikes of a is to destroy man's artificial 

 crop. 



But this arijumenf, to be worth any thing, must 

 go a step lurther. II herds-jrrass yields lo green- 

 sward because the land is tired of it, or because 

 it has taken up all the peculiar iriizreilien's in ih^- 

 soil which are fiited lor if, as the editor and his 

 associate intimaie,* and therefore requires an 

 alternation, then, for the same reason, in three 

 more years, the land ought to be tired of the 

 green-sward, and the green-eward ought in its 

 turn to yield to the herds-grass. But this I utterly 

 deny, and the editor dare not avow it. Nature 

 has her various grasses, but this seems to be 

 her lavorite. When therelnre I see my herds- 

 grass yielding to green-sward or weeds, which 

 unfortunately is loo Irequenily lor my comlbri 

 or profit, 1 ascribe it, not to a propensity to al- 

 ternale, but to that struggle which nature is con- 

 tinually making to destroy my artificial crops, 

 and It seems to me that the editor must in candor 

 ascribe it to the same. 



But if the editor will Tavor me with a visit, I 

 will show him an argument much more in point, 

 and much stronger in force, than the one he has 

 adduced. Last spring I planted my corn about 

 the usual time, peihaps a little earlier, and durintr 

 all Its early stages cultivated it well. But Cur ihe 

 last lour weeks we have had an almost constant 

 succession of cloudy weather, attended with Ire- 

 quent showers of rain, some ol' which have been 

 very heavy. The consequence is, that our 

 ploughs, cultivators and hoes, have been almost 

 entirely banished from the field, and the whole 

 held, Ironi the excess of grass and weeds, presents 

 at this time the most moriilying aspect. But 

 what can be the reason of this ? " Oli, I can tell " 

 says the editor, "and I cite Mr. Turner as m'y 

 witness to prove if, the land is tired of the corn, 

 and therefore seeks to alternate it." What ' 

 tired in three short months ? Or is it not, as I 

 stated, that nature with her crop of grass' and 

 weeds, is seeking to destroy my crop of art. and 

 has taken advantage of the unusually wet season 

 to efTect her purpose 1 



But it was stated some time ago, that nature's 

 great and favorite crop was the forest free. In- 

 deed the chief and prominent object of nature 

 seems to be to cover the whole face of the earth 

 with her trees. She has them of the greatest 

 variety, and she plants and nurtures them in 

 every practicable situation. Some mow even in 

 the water, and I have seen them growino' also 

 on the hard rock, where there was but a'scant 

 supply of soil to sustain them. Indeed I think it 

 not improbable, visionary as it may appear, that 

 laree sections of land in the " Valley of Virginia " 

 now covered with forests of immense trees, were 

 once nothing but a naked lime-stone rock How 

 else can we account for the remarkable ehallow- 



rr^^Jh'^ %^ mistake, as to the editor. The doctrine 

 f«flnrnf/> ' °'' '1°"^^ ^^ groundless ; but we neither 

 assumed it, nor referred to it,— Ed. F R 



ness of the soil ? Now I do not say that nature 

 r .ntedher tre. s originally on Ihe naked rock. 

 bhe was loo bkillul a manager lor such a blunder 

 as that. But, in the firs, inst , nee, she plnnied 

 what could and actually did uww there viz • 

 mosses and lichens. Wiih li.ese, usin.^ ili'e lime 

 to decompose them, she first formed a little ihin 

 soil. Here was a beginning. Aterwards she 

 (irobably employed grasses, first of the lower and 

 then ol the higher orders. A ter this shrufps, &c 

 until, in the luny lapse of time, she accumulated 

 suil enough lor her lavorite crop, the Ibrest tree 

 and then she planted it. And now she has ihe 

 crop to which all her efioris were directed /rom 

 the very beginning. 



Now here I have supposed an extreme case 

 from no soil at all, there has been soil enough 

 formed to sustain the fbrest tree. In brinoincy 

 about this result, great changes have taken pface" 

 the moss has yielded to the grass; the »rass to 

 the shrub, and the shrub to the lorest tree? And 

 di3 not these changes prove rotation 7 Not at all 

 0.1 the other hand, 1 fearlessly affirm, that not 

 one ol these changes was made lor any of the 

 purposes of rotation ; but they are all to be re- 

 garded merely and solely as so many preparatory 

 steps towards nature's final crop. Yon mMn as 

 well tell me that ploughing, harrowing, manuring 

 and planting are so many rotations, as that the 

 preparatory measures adopted by iia'ure, with 

 relerencc to her crop, are so many rotations. 

 ?»laiure, it is true, hns no stable nor farm-pen to 

 furnish manure. Nor has she a plou'Wi, or hoe 

 or spade, wnh which to prepare her lands. But 

 still she has her own resources, decayin.^ vegeta- 

 tion, and the Ihosis of winter, and these^she em- 

 ploys in the most un'iring manner, until she 

 brings her lan.ls into the proper state to receive 

 her crop, and then she plants ir. All the grada- 

 tions, however, from one material to another in 

 the mean time, are not to be regarded as so many 

 rotations, but simf.ly as so many links in the 

 great chain of preparation. 



We will now suppose that the great business 

 ol preparation is at last completed, and that na- 

 ture s grand crop, the crop in which she seems 

 10 take special delight, the iorcst tree, is actually 

 plan.^i. Ihe question is, does she ever chancre 

 11^ The editor affirms, but I deny; and thus 

 we are directly at issue. But the editor demands 

 when the loreet of oak has been removed, and 

 another lorest grows up, is not the latter different 

 l'_om the former? True! but whose work is 

 inis? Is It nature's? Did nature destroy her 

 own forest of oak ? Or rather, did not man de- 

 stroy It 1 Here man came in, and interfered with 

 nature in her steady operation-^. He violently 

 took away the crop in which nature glories, and 

 he suhetiiuted his own artificial crop, a croo that 

 nature abominates in the place of ir. This crop 

 he constantly appropriated, year after year, to 

 his own use, returiiing nothing to Ihe land which 

 produced it, until feniliiy is destroyed, and positive 

 impoverishment has been fi.x<^d upon it. In this 

 Y^^,^sg\vcs the land back again to nature. 

 And how does nature manage it now? Does 

 she put the same crop on it as before? By no 

 means. She has too much skill for this • but 

 finding the land in a very difl^erent situation, she 

 varies the crop according to the difl^erent circum- 

 stances in which she find? if, wisely adapting her 



