134 
SOUTHERN CULTIVATOR. 
show but sZrtrtVioZf/er in a total white population of 
eighteen; whereas the should be classed with slave- 
holders, because all are either directly or indirectly inter- 
ested in upholding the institution of slavery. 
From this it will readily appear that the slaveholding 
as deduced from the Census report, has 
beeen greaily underrated. The plantation above cited in- 
stead of one, would give two votes, at any rate, for slave- 
holders, while it may poll as many as eight. TKs case 
supposed is, I admit, not a common one. Very few plan- 
tation make so large an exhibit of white papulation. And 
there are large families all of whose members may be 
properly classed as non slaveholders, having no interest 
in slaves in possession — none mcxpcctancy, unless a desire 
to owa such property be considered as such. And this 
desire, almost universal among non-slaveholders, to ac- 
quire slave property, shows that there is no danger of a 
free soil movement in the South. If such should be made, 
slaveholders will be found strong enough both in votes and 
arms to put it down. 
You speak of a “monopoly in Southern labor.” You 
say, “to allow them (non-slaveholders) to import slaves 
as freely as cattle are imported from England, might inter- 
fere a little with slaveholding as a close vinnopoly.^^ 
I would respectfully ask, what monopoly 1 Where does 
it exist? What persons or class of persons at the South, 
enjoy the exclusive privilege of buying, or selling, or 
holding slaves ? I am not aware of any such. I am un- 
der the impression that slaves as well as “mules” and 
“cattle” may be bought anywhere in the slaveholding 
States, by any one who has the money to pay for them. 
If you mean that the price of slaves is so high that only 
those who can command a considerableamount of money 
can buy even one, and that therefore it amounts to the 
same thing as if the wealthy had a rtvonopoly in the buy- 
ing of slaves; I reply, that if this be a monopoly at all. 
it is one against which no provision can be made so long 
as this continues to be a free country. Reducing the 
price of slaves will certainly not “dispose of it.” Were 
prices brought down to one-third their present range, it 
would be found that, then as noic, those who have the most 
money 2 could l>uy Ihe most slaves. Then, as now, poor 
men would buy very few slaves, while the greater part 
sold would pass into the possession of the rich. The idea 
of cheapening a thing that the poor may buy vrithout re- 
stricting the rich is a very fallacious one. The general 
government gave to the State of Arkansas the swamp and 
overflowed lands within her borders The wise heads of 
our Legislature conceived tne idea of offering these lands 
at a price so low that every pwr man might buy himselt a 
farm. And what has been the result .? Has this magnifi- 
cent donation passed, by eighths and quarter sections, 
into the possession of the hard-fisted yeomanry? No in- 
deed ! The right of pre-emption alone has secured any of 
it to poor men m want of homes. The greater part of 
these lands that have been disposed of, has been bought up 
by wealthy speculators. 
So it will be when the African slave trade cheapens 
slaves Those who have the money will, naturally enough 
I think, do the buying. Those who now own a hundred 
slaves will desire to possess a “thousand.” The price of 
lands will be enhanced, the staples of commerce over-pro- 
duced, the wages of labor reduced, the poor man’s means 
of making money will be diminished and thus, thougn 
the prices of negroes will be greatly reduced, yet hhsrelative 
means of purchasing will not be as great as they are now. 
The state of things which the reopening of the slave 
trade will tend inevitably to produce, will be anything 
else but favorable to the acquisition of property by the 
poor man. Eveiy obstacle that opposes him now, will be 
increased by the policy proposed. Nothing prevents him 
from acquiring negro property now but xh&want of means; 
this want will be rather increased than diminished, when 
his wages as a laborer are decreased, when the little cot- 
ton he may raise will bring but five to six cents per pound. 
Does any one doubt these results ? That the reduction 
of wages certainly follows a large increase of laborers is 
a proposition too plain for argument. 
1 he over-production and consequent low prices of our 
staples of commerce will as certainly result. For, what 
will this “additional labor” do when we shall have import- 
ed it ? Are not the slaves, brought from the Potomac to 
the South, placed in the cotton, sugar, rice and tobacco 
fields ? And why will not the slaves from the Congo and 
the Niger be employed in the same way? If they are thus 
employed what is there to prevent over-production? 
The cotton crop of last year, though the season was an 
unpropitious one in a large portion of the cotton region, 
will exceed three and a half millions The price is now 
below what it ought to be, considering the cheapness of 
money from the discoveries of gold. I he prices of almost 
all other commodities have been greatly enhanced by this 
influx of gold into the circulation. Cotton, however, al- 
though the crop is not a full one, shows but little advance 
over the ruling rates when money was less abundant. We 
may safely assume, then, that, if a full crop had been 
made, prices would not have been higher than they were 
before California and Australia poured their millions inta 
the circulating medium ; while the operation of this gener- 
al cause has nearly doubled the prices of some other com- 
modities This, I think, indicates clearly that the supply 
of our great staple is even now increasing more rapidly 
than the demand The supply will certainly be augment- 
ed by the re-opening of the slave trade and consequent 
embarcation of a so much larger force into the cotton rais- 
ing business. And a material reduction of price must in- 
evitably result. The “additional force” will not, therefore, 
put money into non-slaveholders’ pockets. The want of 
money is the only obstacle that opposes their becoming 
slaveholders now. This, so far from being removed, will 
be increased by the introduction of more slaves. 
The policy advocated is by no means a poor mayds 
policy. 
It is admitted that slaveholders universally make a wide 
distinction between slaves and mules. The former are 
everywhere regarded as human beings and protected as 
such. Even masters are punished criminally for the abuse 
unnecessarily, or the murder of their oren slaves; whereas 
a man may kill or maim his mule with impunity But 
although there is this wide diflference between the two in 
public estimation, the “public opinion” of the South uni- 
versally regards both as the rightful subjects of property. 
Everywhere in the slaveholding Slates, the buying and 
selling of slaves is proper and right in public estimation 
as the buying and selling of mules. 
It is admitted, also that men have the right to own pro- 
perty in slaves in Africa and everywhere else as well as 
in these States. But it is not admitted, as you plainly in- 
timate that the slaveholding of the Potomac is the same 
with that practiced on the banks of the Niger. I earnest- 
ly protest against the putting of our system on a level 
with the horrible system of barbarous Africans. They 
are, in fact, strikingly unlike. The one is the mild, mer- 
ciful, almost patriarchal government of a civilized master, 
restrained by humane laws and an enlightened public 
opinion; the other is the cruel, brutal rule of a savage 
chieftain, with no law but his own barbarian will, and 
with absolute power over the lives of his captives The 
trade of one is the legitimate tiansfer of persons born and 
raised slaves, with a humane regard for comfort, health and 
domestic happiness ; the trade of the other is the rutnless 
foray of the strong upon the weak, the bloody destruction 
of all capable of resistance, the seizure and barter of the 
hapless survivors to ihe Coast Trader and their transpor- 
tation to the slave marts amid the horrors of the “middle 
passage.” 
