Chapter VIII: Free Figures and Slave (2)

WILLIAM HENRY HURLBUT, of South Carolina, a gentleman of enviable literary attainments, and one from whom we may expect a continuation of good service in the eminently holy crusade now going on against slavery and the devil, furnished not long since, to the _Edinburgh Review_, in the course of a long and highly interesting article, the following summary of oligarchal usurpations--showing that slaveholders have occupied the principal posts of the Government nearly two-thirds of the time:--

Presidents 11 out of 16
Judges of the Supreme Court 17 out of 28
Attorneys General 14 out of 19
Presidents of the Senate 61 out of 77
Speakers of the House 21 out of 33
Foreign Ministers 80 out of 134

As a matter of general interest, and as showing that, while there have been but 11 non-slaveholders directly before the people as candidates for the Presidency, there have been _at least_ 16 slaveholders who were willing to serve their country in the capacity of chief magistrate, the following table may be here introduced:--

RESULT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES FROM 1796 TO 1856.

Year. Name of Candidate. Elect'l vote.

1796 { John Adams 71
{ Thomas Jefferson 68

1800 { Thomas Jefferson 73
{ John Adams 64

1804 { Thomas Jefferson 162
{ Charles C. Pinckney 14

1808 { James Madison 128
{ Charles C. Pinckney 45

1812 { James Madison 122
{ De Witt Clinton 89

1816 { James Monroe 183
{ Rufus King 34

1820 { James Monroe 218
{ No opposition but one vote

1824 { Andrew Jackson[7] 99
{ John Q. Adams 84
{ W. H. Crawford 41
{ Henry Clay 37

1828 { Andrew Jackson 178
{ John Q. Adams 83

1832 { Andrew Jackson 219
{ Henry Clay 49
{ John Floyd 11
{ William Wirt 7

1836 { Martin Van Buren 170
{ William H. Harrison 73
{ Hugh L. White 26
{ Willie P. Mangum 11
{ Daniel Webster 14

1840 { William H. Harrison 234
{ Martin Van Buren 60

1844 { James K. Polk 170
{ Henry Clay 105

1848 { Zachary Taylor 163
{ Lewis Cass 127

1852 { Franklin Pierce 254
{ General Winfield Scott 42

1856 { James Buchanan 174
{ John C. Fremont 114
{ Millard Fillmore 8

AID FOR KANSAS.

As a sort of accompaniment to tables, 50, 51, 52 and 53, we will here introduce a few items which will more fully illustrate the liberality of Freedom and the niggardliness of Slavery.

From an editorial article that appeared in the Richmond (Va.,) _Dispatch_, in July, 1856, bewailing the close-fistedness of slavery, we make the following extract:--

"Gerrit Smith, the Abolitionist, has just pledged himself to give
$1,500 a month for the next twelve months to aid in establishing
Freedom in Kansas. He gave, but a short time since, at the Kansas
relief meeting in Albany, $3,000. Prior to that, he had sent about
$1,000 to the Boston Emigrant Committee. Out of his own funds, he
subsequently equipped a Madison county company, of one hundred picked
men, and paid their expenses to Kansas. At Syracuse he subscribed
$10,000 for Abolition purposes, so that his entire contributions
amount to at least $40,000."

An Eastern paper says:--

"The sum of $500 was contributed at a meeting at New Bedford on
Monday evening, to make Kansas free. The following sums have been
contributed for the same purpose: $2,000 in Taunton: $600 in Raynham:
$800 in Clinton: $300 in Danbury, Ct. In Wisconsin, $2,500 at
Janesville: $500 at Dalton: $500 at the Women's Aid Meeting in
Chicago: $2,000 in Rockford, Ill."

A telegraphic dispatch, dated Boston, January 2, 1857, informs us that--

"The Secretary of the Kansas Aid Committee acknowledges the receipt
of $42,678."

Exclusive of the amounts above, the readers of the New-York _Tribune_ have contributed about $30,000 for the purpose of securing Kansas to Freedom; and, with the same object in view, other individuals and societies have, from time to time, made large contributions, of which we have failed to keep a memorandum. The legislature of Vermont has appropriated $20,000; and other free State legislatures are prepared to appropriate millions, if necessary. Free men have determined that Kansas shall be free, and free it soon shall be, and ever so remain. Harmoniously the work proceeds.

Now let us see how slavery has rewarded the poor, ignorant, deluded, and degraded mortals--swaggering lickspittles--who have labored so hard to gain for it "a local habitation and a name" in the disputed territory. One D. B. Atchison, Chairman of the Executive Committee of Border Ruffians, shall tell us all about it. Over date of October 13th, 1856, he says:

"Up to this moment, from all the States except Missouri, we have only
received the following sums, and through the following persons:--

A. W. Jones, Houston, Miss., $152
H. D. Clayton, Eufala, Ala., 500
Capt. Deedrick, South Carolina, 500
------
$1,152."

On this subject, further comment is unnecessary.

Numerous other contrasts, equally disproportionate, might be drawn between the vigor and munificence of freedom and the impotence and stinginess of slavery. We will, however, in addition to the above, advert to only a single instance. During the latter part of the summer of 1855, the citizens of the niggervilles of Norfolk and Portsmouth, in Virginia, were sorely plagued with yellow fever. Many of them fell victims to the disease, and most of those who survived, and who were not too unwell to travel, left their homes, horror-stricken and dejected. To the horror of mankind in general, and to the glory of freemen in particular, contributions in money, provisions, clothing, and other valuable supplies, poured in from all parts of the country, for the relief of the sufferers. Portsmouth alone, according to the report of her relief association, received $42,547 in cash from the free States, and only $12,182 in cash from all the slave States, exclusive of Virginia, within whose borders the malady prevailed. Including Virginia, the sum total of all the slave State contributions amounted to only $33,398. Well did the Richmond _Examiner_ remark at the time--"we fear that generosity of Virginians is but a figure of speech." Slavery! thy name is shame!

In connection with tables 44 and 45 on page 292, it will be well to examine the following statistics of Congressional representation, which we transcribe from Reynold's Political Map of the United States;--

UNITED STATES SENATE.

16 free States, with a white population of 13,238,670, have 32
Senators.

15 slave States, with a white population of 6,186,477, have 30
Senators.

So that 413,708 free men of the North enjoy but the same political
privileges in the U. S. Senate as is given to 206,215 slave
propagandists.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The free States have a total of 144 members.

The slave States have a total of 90 members.

One free State Representative represents 91,935 white men and women.

One slave State Representative represents 68,725 white men and women.

Slave Representation gives to slavery an advantage over freedom of 30
votes in the House of Representatives.

CUSTOM-HOUSE RECEIPTS.--1854.

Free States, $60,010,489
Slave States, 5,136,969
-----------
Balance in favor of the Free States, $54,873,520

A contrast quite distinguishable!

That the apologists of slavery cannot excuse the shame and the shabbiness of themselves and their country, as we have frequently heard them attempt to do, by falsely asserting that the North has enjoyed over the South the advantages of priority of settlement, will fully appear from the following table:--

FREE STATES.

1614. New-York first settled by the Dutch.
1620. Massachusetts settled by the Puritans.
1623. New-Hampshire settled by the Puritans.
1624. New-Jersey settled by the Dutch.
1635. Connecticut settled by the Puritans.
1636. Rhode Island settled by Roger Williams.
1682. Pennsylvania settled by William Penn.
1791. Vermont admitted into the Union.
1802. Ohio admitted into the Union.
1816. Indiana admitted into the Union.
1818. Illinois admitted into the Union.
1820. Maine admitted into the Union.
1836. Michigan admitted into the Union.
1846. Iowa admitted into the Union.
1848. Wisconsin admitted into the Union.
1850. California admitted into the Union.

SLAVE STATES.

1607. Virginia first settled by the English.
1627. Delaware settled by the Swedes and Fins.
1635. Maryland settled by Irish Catholics.
1650. North Carolina settled by the English.
1670. South Carolina settled by the Huguenots.
1733. Georgia settled by Gen. Oglethorpe.
1782. Kentucky admitted into the Union.
1796. Tennessee admitted into the Union.
1811. Louisiana admitted into the Union.
1817. Mississippi admitted into the Union.
1819. Alabama admitted into the Union.
1821. Missouri admitted into the Union.
1836. Arkansas admitted into the Union.
1845. Florida admitted into the Union.
1846. Texas admitted into the Union.

In the course of an exceedingly interesting article on the early settlements in America, R. K. Browne, formerly editor and proprietor of the San Francisco _Evening Journal_, says:--

"Many people seem to think that the Pilgrim Fathers were the first
who settled upon our shores, and therefore that they ought to be
entitled, in a particular manner, to our remembrance and esteem.

"This is not the case, and we herewith present to our readers a list
of settlements made in the present United States, prior to that of
Plymouth:

1564. A Colony of French Protestants under Ribault settled in
Florida.

1565. St. Augustine[8] founded by Pedro Melendez.

1584. Sir Walter Raleigh obtains a patent and sends two vessels to
the American coast, which receives the name of Virginia.

1607. The first effectual settlement made at Jamestown, Va., by the
London Company.

1614. A fort erected by the Dutch upon the site of New-York.

1615. Fort Orange built near the site of Albany, N. Y.

1619. The first General Assembly called in Virginia.

1620. The Pilgrims land on Plymouth Rock."

FREEDOM AND SLAVERY AT THE FAIR.

WHAT FREEDOM DID.

At an Agricultural Fair held at Watertown, in the State of New-York, on the 2d day of October, 1856, two hundred and twenty premiums, ranging from three to fifty dollars each, were awarded to successful competitors--the aggregate amount of said premiums being $2,396, or an average of $10.89 each. From the proceedings of the Awarding Committee we make the following extracts:--

Best Horse Colt, George Parish, $25.00
Best Filly, J. Staplin, 20.00
Best Brood Mare, A. Blunt, 25.00
Best Bull, Wm. Johnson, 25.00
Best Heifer, A. M. Rogers, 20.00
Best Cow, C. Baker, 25.00
Best Stall-fed Beef, J. W. Taylor, 10.00
Best sample Wheat, Wm. Ottley, 5.00
Best sample Flaxseed, H. Weir, 3.00
Best sample Timothy Seed, E. S. Hayward 3.00
(Highest) Best Team of Oxen, Hiram Converse, 50.00
(Lowest) Best sample Sweet Corn, L. Marshall, 3.00
------
Aggregate amount of twelve premiums, $214.00
An average of $17.83 each.

WHAT SLAVERY DID.

At the Rowan County Agricultural Fair, held at Mineral Springs, in North Carolina, on the 13th day of November, 1856, thirty premiums, ranging from twenty-five cents to two dollars each, were awarded to successful competitors--the aggregate amount of said premiums being $42, or an average of $1.40 each. From the proceedings of the Awarding Committee we make the following extracts:--

Best Horse Colt, T. A. Burke, $2.00
Best Filly, James Cowan, 2.00
Best Brood Mare, M. W. Goodman, 2.00
Best Bull, J. F. McCorkle, 2.00
Best Heifer, J. F. McCorkle, 2.00
Best Cow, T. A. Burke, 2.00
Best Stall-fed Beef, S. D. Rankin, 1.00
Best Sample Wheat, M. W. Goodman, 50
Best lot Beefs, J. J. Summerell, 25
Best lot Turnips, Thomas Barber, 25
(Highest) Best pair Match Horses, R. W. Griffith, 2.00
(Lowest) Best lot Cabbage, Thomas Hyde, 25
-----
Aggregate amount of twelve premiums, $16.25
An average of $1.36 each.

Besides the two hundred and twenty premiums, amounting in the aggregate to $2,396, freedom granted several diplomas and silver medals; besides the thirty premiums amounting in the aggregate to $42, slavery granted none--nothing. While examining these figures, it should be recollected that agriculture is the peculiar province of the slave States. If commerce or manufactures had been the subject of the fair, the result might have shown even a greater disproportion in favor of freedom, and yet there would have been some excuse for slavery, for it makes no pretensions to either the one or the other; but as agriculture was the subject, slavery can have no excuse whatever, but must bear all the shame of its niggardly and revolting impotence; this it must do for the reason that agriculture is its special and almost only pursuit.

The reports of the Comptrollers of the States of New York and North Carolina, for the year 1856, are now before us. From each report we have gleaned a single item, which, when compared, the one with the other, speaks volumes in favor of freedom and against slavery. We refer to the average value per acre of lands in the two States; let slavocrats read, reflect, and repent.

In 1856, there were assessed for taxation in the State of

NEW YORK,

Acres of land 30,080,000
Valued at $1,112,133,136
Average value per acre $36.97

In 1856, there were assessed for taxation in the State of

NORTH CAROLINA,

Acres of land 32,450,560
Valued at $98,800,636
Average value per acre $3.06

It is difficult for us to make any remarks on the official facts above. Our indignation is struck almost dumb at this astounding and revolting display of the awful wreck that slavery is leaving behind it in the South. We will however, go into a calculation for the purpose of ascertaining as nearly as possible, in this one particular, how much North Carolina has lost by the retention of slavery. As we have already seen, the average value per acre of land in the State of New York is $36.97; in North Carolina it is only $3.06; why is it so much less, or even any less, in the latter than in the former? The answer is, _slavery_. In soil, in climate, in minerals, in water-power for manufactural purposes, and in area of territory, North Carolina has the advantage of New York, and, with the exception of slavery, no plausible reason can possibly be assigned why land should not be _at least_ as valuable in the valley of the Yadkin as it is along the banks of the Genesee.

The difference between $36.97 and $3.06 is $33.91, which, multiplied by the whole number of acres of land in North Carolina, will show, in this one particular, the enormous loss that Freedom has sustained on account of Slavery in the Old North State. Thus:--

32,450,560 acres _a_ $33,91 $1,100,398,489.

Let it be indelibly impressed on the mind, however, that this amount, large as it is, is only a moity of the sum that it has cost to maintain slavery in North Carolina. From time to time, hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars have left the State, either in search of profitable, permanent investment abroad, or in the shape of profits to Northern merchants and manufactures, who have become the moneyed aristocracy of the country by supplying to the South such articles of necessity, utility, and adornment, as would have been produced at home but for the pernicious presence of the peculiar institution.

A reward of Eleven Hundred Millions of Dollars is offered for the conversion of the lands of North Carolina into free soil. The lands themselves, desolate and impoverished under the fatal foot of slavery, offer the reward. How, then, can it be made to appear that the abolition of slavery in North Carolina, and, indeed, throughout all the Southern States--for slavery is exceedingly inimical to them all--is not demanded by every consideration of justice, prudence, and good sense? In 1850, the total value of all the slaves of the State, at the rate of four hundred dollars per head, amounted to less than one hundred and sixteen millions of dollars. Is the sum of one hundred and sixteen millions of dollars more desirable than the sum of eleven hundred millions of dollars? When a man has land for sale, does he reject thirty-six dollars per acre and take three? Non-slaveholding whites! look well to your interests! Many of you have lands; comparatively speaking, you have nothing else. Abolish slavery, and you will enhance the value of every league, your own and your neighbors', from three to thirty-six dollars per acre. Your little tract containing two hundred acres, now valued at the pitiful sum of only six hundred dollars, will then be worth seven thousand. Your children, now deprived of even the meagre advantages of common schools, will then reap the benefits of a collegiate education. Your rivers and smaller streams, now wasting their waters in idleness, will then turn the wheels of multitudinous mills. Your bays and harbors, now unknown to commerce, will then swarm with ships from every enlightened quarter of the globe. Non-slaveholding whites! look well to your interests!

Would the slaveholders of North Carolina lose anything by the abolition of slavery? Let us see. According to their own estimate, their slaves are worth, in round numbers, say, one hundred and twenty millions of dollars. There are in the State twenty-eight thousand slaveholders, owning, it may be safely assumed, an average of at least five hundred acres of land each--fourteen millions of acres in all. This number of acres, multiplied by thirty-three dollars and ninety-one cents, the difference in value between free soil and slave soil, makes the enormous sum of four hundred and seventy-four millions of dollars--showing that, by the abolition of slavery, the slaveholders themselves would realize a net profit of not less than three hundred and fifty-four millions of dollars!

Compensation to slaveholders for the negroes now in their possession! The idea is preposterous. The suggestion is criminal. The demand is unjust, wicked, monstrous, damnable. Shall we pat the bloodhounds of slavery for the sake of doing them a favor? Shall we fee the curs of slavery in order to make them rich at our expense? Shall we pay the whelps of slavery for the privilege of converting them into decent, honest, upright men? No, never! The non-slaveholders expect to gain, and will gain, something by the abolition of slavery; but slaveholders themselves will, by far, be the greater gainers; for, in proportion to population, they own much larger and more fertile tracts of land, and will, as a matter of course, receive the lion's share of the increase in the value of not only real estate, but also of other genuine property, of which they are likewise the principal owners. How ridiculously absurd, therefore, is the objection, that, if we liberate the slaves, we ruin the masters! Not long since, a gentleman in Baltimore, a native of Maryland, remarked in our presence that he was an abolitionist because he felt that it was right and proper to be one; "but," inquired he, "are there not, in some of the States, many widows and orphans who would be left in destitute circumstances, if their negroes were taken from them?" In answer to the question, we replied that slavery had already reduced thousands and tens of thousands of non-slaveholding widows and orphans to the lowest depths of poverty and ignorance, and that we did not believe one slaveholding widow and three orphans were of more, or even of as much consequence as five non-slaveholding widows and fifteen orphans. "You are right," exclaimed the gentleman, "I had not viewed the subject in that light before; I perceive you go in for the greatest good to the greatest number." Emancipate the negroes, and the ex-slaveholding widow would still retain her lands and tenements, which, in consequence of being surrounded by the magic influences of liberty, would soon render her far more wealthy and infinitely more respectable, than she could possibly ever become while trafficking in human flesh.

The fact is, every slave in the South costs the State in which he resides at least three times as much as he, in the whole course of his life, is worth to his master. Slavery benefits no one but its immediate, individual owners, and them only in a pecuniary point of view, and at the sacrifice of the dearest rights and interests of the whole mass of non-slaveholders, white and black. Even the masters themselves, as we have already shown, would be far better off without it than with it. To all classes of society the institution is a curse; an especial curse is it to those who own it not. Non-slaveholding whites! look well to your interests!