ed years. The center of slavery thus moved southwest because of
changing economic conditions, not because of any inherent opposition to
the system. This gradual weeding out of the slaves in Virginia may very
possibly account for the general esteem in which Virginia negroes have
been held. To indicate the character of those sold South, Bracket[2]
gives a quotation from a Baltimore paper of 1851 which advertised some
good Negroes to be "exchanged for servants suitable for the South with
bad characters."

To trace the development of the slave-holding districts is not germain
to the present study, interesting as it is in itself. It may be worth
while to trace the progress in one state. In Georgia, in 1800, the
blacks outnumbered the whites in the seacoast counties, excepting
Camden, and were also in the majority in Richmond. In 1830 they also
outnumbered the whites along the Savannah river and were reaching
westward as far as Jones county. In 1850, besides the coast and the
river, they were in a majority in a narrow belt crossing the state from
Lincoln to Harris counties. By 1860 they had swung southward in the
western part of the state and were in possession of most of the
counties south of Troup, while the map of 1900 shows that they have
added to this territory. In other parts of the state they have never
been greatly in evidence. The influence of the rivers is again evident
when we notice that they moved up to the head of navigation, then swung
westward.

As slavery developed, it was accompanied by a great extension of cotton
growing, or, perhaps, it were truer to say that the gradual rise of
cotton planting made possible the increased use of slaves. The center of
the cotton industry had reached the middle of Alabama by 1850, was near
Jackson, Mississippi, in 1860, and has since moved slowly westward. The
most prosperous district of the South in 1860 was probably the alluvial
lands of the Mississippi. This gives us the key to the westward trend of
slavery. Let it be remembered, too, that the system of slavery demands
an abundance of new lands to take the place of those worn out by the
short-sighted cultivation adopted. Thus in the South little attention
was paid to rotation of crops or to fertilizers. As long as the new land
was abundant, it was not considered, and probably was not profitable to
keep up the old. The result was that "the wild and reckless system of
extensive cultivation practiced prior to the war had im