so much even as
one-third of this."--_Cotton Trade of Great Britain_, by J.A. MANN.
--In India, labor is 80 per cent cheaper than in the United States.]

The dynasty of Cotton is based on the monopoly of the cotton-culture in
the Cotton States of the Union; its whole policy is directed to the two
ends of making the most of and retaining that monopoly; and economically
it reduces everything to subserviency to the question of cotton-supply;
--thus Cotton is King. The result necessarily is, that the Cotton States
have turned all their energies to that one branch of industry. All other
branches they abandon or allow to languish. They have no commerce of
their own, few manufactories, fewer arts; and in their abandonment of
self in their devotion to their King, they do not even raise their
own hay or corn, dig their own coal, or fell their own timber; and at
present, Louisiana is abandoning the sugar-culture, one of the few
remaining exports of the South, to share more largely in the monopoly of
cotton. Thus the community necessarily loses its fair proportions; it
ceases to be self-sustaining; it exercises one faculty alone, until all
the others wither and become impotent for very lack of use. This intense
and all-pervading devotion to one pursuit, and that a pursuit to which
the existence of a servile class is declared essential, must, in a
republic more than in any other government, produce certain marked
politico-philosophical and economical effects on the master-class as a
whole. In a country conducted on a system of servile labor, as in one
conducted on free, the master-class must be divided into the two great
orders of the rich and poor,--those who have, and those who have not.
That the whole policy of the Cotton dynasty tends necessarily to making
broader the chasm between these orders is most apparent. It makes the
rich richer, and the poor poorer; for, as, according to the creed of the
dynasty, capital should own labor, and the labor thus owned can alone
successfully produce cotton, he who has must be continually increasing
his store, while he who has not can neither raise the one staple
recognized by the Cotton dynasty, nor turn his labor, his only property,
to other branches of industry; for such have, in the universal
abandonment of the community to cotton, been allowed to languish and
die. The economical tendency of the Cotton dynasty is therefore to
divide the master-class yet more distinctly into the two great o