"In a certain sense, the liberation of Slaves is the destruction of Property—Property acquired by descent, or by purchase, the same as any other property. It is no less true for having been often said, that the people of the South are not more responsible for the original introduction of this Property than are the people of the North; and when it is remembered how unhesitatingly we all use cotton and sugar, and share the profits of dealing in them, it may not be quite safe to say that the South has been more responsible than the North for its continuance.
"If, then, for a common object, this Property is to be sacrificed, is it not just that it be done at a common charge?
"And if, with less money, or money more easily paid, we can preserve the benefits of the Union by this means than we can by the War alone, is it not also economical to do it? Let us consider it then. Let us ascertain the sum we have expended in the War since compensated Emancipation was proposed last March, and consider whether, if that measure had been promptly accepted, by even some of the Slave States, the same sum would not have done more to close the War than has been otherwise done. If so, the measure would save money, and, in that view, would be a prudent and economical measure.
"Certainly it is not so easy to pay something as it is to pay nothing; but it is easier to pay a large sum than it is to pay a larger one. And it is easier to pay any sum when we are able, than it is to pay it before we are able. The War requires large sums, and requires them at once.
"The aggregate sum necessary for compensated Emancipation of course would be large. But it would require no ready cash, nor the bonds, even, any faster than the Emancipation progresses. This might not, and probably would not, close before the end of the thirty-seven years. At that time we shall probably have a hundred million people to share the burden, instead of thirty-one millions, as now. And not only so, but the increase of our population may be expected to continue, for a long time after that period, as rapidly as before; because our territory will not have become full.
"I do not state this inconsiderately. At the same ratio of increase which we have maintained, on an average, from our first National census in 1790, until that of 1860, we should, in 1900, have a population of 103,208,415. And why may we not continue that ratio far beyond that period?
"Our abundant room—our broad National homestead—is our ample resource. Were our territory as limited as are the British Isles, very certainly our population could not expand as stated. Instead of receiving the foreign born, as now, we should be compelled to send part of the Native-born away.
"But such is not our condition. We have two million nine hundred and sixty-three thousand square miles. Europe has three million and eight hundred thousand, with a population averaging seventy-three and one-third persons to the square mile. Why may not our Country at some time, average as many? Is it less fertile? Has it more waste surface by mountains, rivers, lakes, deserts, or other causes? Is it inferior to Europe in any natural advantage?
"If, then, we are at some time to be as populous as Europe, how soon? As to when this may be, we can judge by the past and the present; as to when it will be, if ever, depends much on whether we maintain the Union.
"Several of our States are already above the average of Europe—seventy-three and a third to the square mile. Massachusetts has 157; Rhode Island, 133; Connecticut, 99; New York and New Jersey, each, 80. Also two other great States, Pennsylvania and Ohio, are not far below, the former having 63, and the latter 59. The States already above the European average, except New York, have increased in as rapid a ratio, since passing that point, as ever before; while no one of them is equal to some other parts of our Country in natural capacity for sustaining a dense population.