[79] F. L. Olmsted, The Seaboard Slave States, pp. 140-141. Cf. Ibid., p. 185, pp. 213-214.
[80] Olmsted, Seaboard Slave States, pp. 298-299. Cf. "The amount of it, then, is this: Improvement and progress in South Carolina is forbidden by its present system." (Ibid., pp. 522-523. And for his general philosophy on the subject, Ibid., pp. 490-491.)
[81] Olmsted, Seaboard Slave States, pp. 179-180.
[82] Ibid., pp. 288 ff.
[83] Plunkett, p. 147.
[84] Ingle, Southern Sidelights, pp. 68-69.
[85] Ingle, Southern Sidelights, p. 11.
[86] Clark, in South in Building of Nation, Vol. V, pp. 213-214. Not only did slavery deter from coming to the South immigrants opposed to the institution, but the Southern whites were indisposed to welcome those who refused to grow into the system. A Southern Newspaper of the fifties betrayed this: "A large proportion of the mechanical force that migrate to the South, are a curse instead of a blessing; they are generally a worthless, unprincipled class—enemies to our peculiar institutions, and formidable barriers to the success of our native mechanics. Not so, however, with another class who migrate southward—we mean that class known as merchants; they are generally intelligent and trustworthy, and they seldom fail to discover their true interests. They become slaveholders and landed proprietors; and, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, they are better qualified to become constituents of our institution, than even a certain class of our native born.... The intelligent mercantile class ... are generally valuable acquisitions to society, and every way qualified to sustain 'our institution'; but the mechanics, most of them, are pests to society, dangerous among the slave population, and ever ready to form combinations against the interest of the slave-holder, against the laws of the country, and against the peace of the Commonwealth." (Quoted in Olmsted, Seaboard Slave States, p. 511.)
[87] Tompkins, History of Mecklenburg, Vol. II, p. 204.
[88] Cf. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 153.