ement as it stands was a fair one at the
time, it is only necessary for the reader to look at the last named
table to see that the three years preceding 1853 exported considerably
less than that year.

[29] See Table III, Appendix.

[30] These estimates have not been recast and adapted to 1859, for the
third edition, because, as will be seen from Tables VII, VIII and X,
there has been no great change in the amount of these commodities
consumed since 1853.

CHAPTER VII.

Economical relations of Slavery further
considered--System unprofitable in grain growing,
but profitable in culture of Cotton--Antagonism of
Farmer and Planter--"Protection," and, "Free
Trade" controversy--Congressional Debates on the
subject--Mr. Clay--Position of the South--"Free
Trade," considered indispensable to its
prosperity.

BUT the subject of the relations of American slavery to the economical
interests of the world, demands a still closer scrutiny, in order that
the causes of the failure of abolitionism to arrest its progress, as
well as the present relations of the institution to the politics of the
country, may fully appear.

Slave labor has seldom been made profitable where it has been wholly
employed in grazing and grain growing; but it becomes remunerative in
proportion as the planters can devote their attention to cotton, sugar,
rice, or tobacco. To render Southern slavery profitable in the highest
degree, therefore, the slaves must be employed upon some one of these
articles, and be sustained by a supply of food and draught animals from
Northern agriculturists; and before the planter's supplies are complete,
to these must be added cotton gins, implements of husbandry, furniture,
and tools, from Northern mechanics. This is a point of the utmost
moment, and must be considered more at length.

It has long been a vital question to the success of the slaveholder, to
know how he could render the labor of his slaves the most profitable.
The grain growing States had to emancipate their slaves, to rid
themselves of a profitless system. The cotton-growing States, ever after
the invention of the cotton gin, had found the production of that staple
highly remunerative. The logical conclusion, from these different
results, was, that the less provisions, and the more cotton grown by the
planter, the greater would be his profits. This must be noted with
s