NATIONAL IGNORANCE OF THE AGRICULTURAL INTEREST. 391 



arise almost a^ much from the migratory habits o£ om- people, and 

 the constant taking-up of rich prairies, yielding their virgin harvests 

 of breadstuffs, as from the institutions peculiar to our favored 

 country. 



We regret to say; that it does not require much scrutiny on the 

 part of a serious inquirer, to discover that we are in some respects 

 iilie a large and increasing family, running over and devouring a 

 great estate to which they have fallen heirs, with little or no care to 

 preserve or maintain it, rather than a wise and prudent one, seeking 

 to maintain that estate in its best and most productive condition. 



, To be sure, our trade and commerce are pursued with a thrifl 

 and sagacity likely to add largely to our substantial wealth, and to. 

 develope the collateral resources of the country. But, after all, trade 

 and commerce are mot the great interests of the country. That ia- 

 terest is, as every one admijts, agrigultnre. By the. latter, the great 

 bujk.of the people live, and by it all are fed. It is clear,, therefore,, 

 if that interest is neglected or misunderstood, the population of the 

 coudtry may steadily increase, but the means of supporting that 

 population (which can never be largely a manufacturing population) 

 must necessarily lessen, proportionately, every year. 



Now, there are two undeniable facts at present .staring us Amer- 

 icans in the face — amid all this prosperity : the first is, that the pro- 

 ductive power of nearly all the land in the United States, which has 

 been ten years in cultivation, is fearfully lessening, every season, fi-om 

 the^desolating eflfects of a ruinous system of husl)andry ; and the 

 second is, that in consequence of this, the, rural population of tih« 

 older States is either at a, stand-still, or it is falling oflf, or it increases 

 very slowly in proportion to the population of those cities and towai 

 largely engaged in commercial pursuits. . 



Our census returns show, for instance, that in some of the States 

 (such as Rhode Island,, Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland)^ the 

 only increase of population is in the towns — for in the rural popu- 

 lation there is no growth at all. In the great agricultural State of 

 New-York, the gain in the fourteen largest towns is sixty-four per 

 cent, while in the rest of the State it is but nineteen per cent. In 

 Pennsylvania, thirty-nine and a quarter per cent, in the large towns, 

 aiid but tventy-one per cent, in the rural districts. The politicians in 



