APPENDIX D.
In the year 1793 there were but 5,000,000 pounds of cotton produced in the United States, and but 500,000 exported. Cotton never could have become an article of much commercial importance under the old method of preparing it for market. By hand-picking, or by a process strictly manual, a cultivator could not prepare for market, during the year, more than from 200 to 300 pounds; being only about one-tenth of what he could cultivate to maturity in the field. In '93 Mr. Whitney invented the Cotton-gin now in use, by which the labor of at least one thousand hands under the old system, is performed by one, in preparing the crop for market. Seven years after the invention (1800) 35,000,000 pounds were raised, and 17,800,000 exported. In 1834, 460,000,000 were raised--384,750,000 exported. Such was the effect of Mr. Whitney's invention. It gave, at once, extraordinary value to the land in that part of the country where alone cotton could be raised; and to slaves, because it was the general, the almost universal, impression that the cultivation of the South could be carried on only by slaves. There being no free state in the South, competition between free and slave labor never could exist on a scale sufficiently extensive to prove the superiority of the former in the production of cotton, and in the preparation of it for market.
Thus, it has happened that Mr. Whitney has been the innocent occasion of giving to slavery in this country its present importance--of magnifying it into the great interest to which all others must yield. How he was rewarded by the South--especially by the planters of Georgia--the reader may see by consulting Silliman's Journal for January, 1832, and the Encyclopedia Americana, article, WHITNEY.
* * * * *
APPENDIX E.
It is impossible, of course, to pronounce with precision, how great would have been the effect in favor of emancipation, if the effort to resist the admission of Missouri as a slaveholding state had been successful. We can only conjecture what it would have been, by the effect its admission has had in fostering slavery up to its present huge growth and pretensions. If the American people had shown, through their National legislature, a sincere opposition to slavery by the rejection of Missouri, it is probable at least--late as it was--that the early expiration of the 'system' would, by this time, have been discerned by all men.
When the Constitution was formed, the state of public sentiment even in the South--with the exception of South Carolina and Georgia, was favorable to emancipation. Under the influence of this public sentiment was the Constitution formed. No person at all versed in constitutional or legal interpretation--with his judgment unaffected by interest or any of the prejudices to which the existing controversy has given birth--could, it is thought, construe the Constitution, in its letter, as intending to perpetuate slavery. To come to such a conclusion with a full knowledge of what was the mind of this nation in regard to slavery, when that instrument was made, demonstrates a moral or intellectual flaw that makes all reasoning useless.
Although it is a fact beyond controversy in our history, that the power conferred by the Constitution on Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations" was known to include the power of abolishing the African slave-trade--and that it was expected that Congress, at the end of the period for which the exercise of that power on this particular subject was restrained, would use it (as it did) with a view to the influence that the cutting off of that traffic would have on the "system" in this country--yet, such has been the influence of the action of Congress on all matters with which slavery has been mingled--more especially on the Missouri question, in which slavery was the sole interest--that an impression has been produced on the popular mind, that the Constitution of the United States guaranties, and consequently perpetuates, slavery to the South. Most artfully, incessantly, and powerfully, has this lamentable error been harped on by the slaveholders, and by their advocates in the free states. The impression of constitutional favor to the slaveholders would, of itself, naturally create for them an undue and disproportionate influence in the control of the government; but when to this is added the arrogance that the possession of irresponsible power almost invariably engenders in its possessors--their overreaching assumptions--the contempt that the slaveholders entertain for the great body of the people of the North, it has almost delivered over the government, bound neck and heels, into the hands of slaveholding politicians--to be bound still more rigorously, or unloosed, as may seem well in their discretion.
Who can doubt that, as a nation, we should have been more honorable and influential abroad--more prosperous and united at home--if Kentucky, at the very outset of this matter, had been refused admission to the Union until she had expunged from her Constitution the covenant with oppression? She would not have remained out of the Union a single year on that account. If the worship of Liberty had not been exchanged for that of Power--if her principles had been successfully maintained in this first assault, their triumph in every other would have been easy. We should not have had a state less in the confederacy, and slavery would have been seen, at this time, shrunk up to the most contemptible dimensions, if it had not vanished entirely away. But we have furnished another instance to be added to the long and melancholy list already existing, to prove that,--
------"facilis descensus Averni,
Sed revocare gradum------
Hoc opus hic labor est,"------