Nothing has appeared to me more remarkable in the agriculture of this region than the close neighborhood (often, indeed, seen on the same property) of the best husbandry in some respects, and almost the worst in most others. The great error of exhausting the fertility of the soil is not peculiar to cotton culture or to the Southern States. It belongs, from necessity, to the agriculture of every newly settled country, and especially where the land, before being brought under tillage, was in the forest state. When first settled upon, forest land costs almost nothing, and labor is scarce and dear. Even if labor is more abundant, it still will be long before enough land can be cleared to allow changes of culture and rest to the fields; and for some years after each new clearing, it would be even beneficial to continue the tillage of corn, tobacco, or cotton, so as effectually to kill all remains of the forest growth. But as soon as enough land can be brought under culture, and has been put in clean condition, so as to allow space for change of crops and due respite from continual tillage, the previous exhausting course will no longer be best even for early profit. Even in a new country, while land is yet fertile, it is cheaper to preserve that fertility from any exhaustion than it is to reduce it considerably. And in an older agricultural country, like South Carolina, having abundant resources in marl and lime for improving fertility, it would be much cheaper and more profitable to improve an acre of before exhausted land than it is to clear and bring under culture an acre of ordinary land from the forest state, allowing that both pieces are to be brought to the same power and rate of production. New settlers are not censurable for beginning this exhausting culture. But they and their successors are not the less condemnable for continuing it after the circumstances which justified it have ceased. The system was first begun in Eastern Virginia, because it was the first settled part of the present United States, and it continued to prevail, almost universally, until since the course of my adult life began, and only has partially ceased since because the country was nearly reduced to barrenness and the proprietors to ruin. From this erroneous policy so long pursued in Virginia, and the manifest and well-known disastrous results in the general and seemingly desperate s'erility of the older settled portion of the State, the younger Southern States might have taken warning, and have learned to profit by the woful and costly experience of others. But it seems that every agricultural community must and will run the same race of exhausting culture and impoverishment of land and its cultivators before being convinced of the propriety of commencing an opposite course, after the best means and facilities for making that beneficial change have been greatly impaired by the lapse of time, and progress of waste of fertility-if, indeed, these means are not then irretrievably forfeited. If, at this time, the work of improvement, with the aid of marl and lime, were properly begun and prosecuted, there would be found here incalculable advantages over those of the pioneers in the like work in Virginia. These advantages would be-first, a ten-fold better supply of far richer and cheaper marl than is found in Virginia; second, much more remaining organic matter, or original fertility of the soil, as yet unexhausted; third, full information to be obtained of the operations and opinions of thousands of experienced and successful marlers to refer to, of which advantage there was almost nothing existing 30 years ago. In South Carolina more marling could now be done in a year, and in a proper

manner, than was done in Virginia for the first 20 years; and, though judging merely by analogy, I infer that the benefit would not be less great in this region than in my own. And now I will state, from unquestionable official documents, something of what has been effected in Virginia-not merely in cases of particular farms, and those entirely marled, which might show tripled or quadrupled products and market returns, and ten fold intrinsic value, compared to their former low conditionbut cases showing the bearing of the comparatively few marled and limed farms on the aggregate assessed value of all the lands in lower Virginia, and upon the receipts of land-tax from the same, although not one-twentieth part of the whole tide water district has yet been improved in fertility, or is the least better (and probably the great remainder is much poorer) than when the marling of other lands first began to raise the general average of assessed values throughout this whole district. It appears, from the latest State assessment of lands in Virginia for 1850, that the actual increase of value in the tide-water district only, since 1838, the previous assessment, was more than $17,000,000. On this increase of valuation, and at the same rate of taxation, there is more than $17,000 increase of land-tax alone accruing annually to the State treasury. It is obvious that any increased value of lands, caused by their increased production, would necessarily require an increase of labor and of farming stock, and would produce proportional increase of general wealth of the improvers, and would add other receipts from taxes in proportion, all serving still more to augment the public revenue.

The recent addition to the aggregate value of lands in Eastern Vir ginia is admitted to be the effect of agricultural improvements; and that, more than all, the net increase is due to marling and liming only, would be equally evident if I could here adduce the proofs, as I have done elsewhere. Further: though 1838 was the date of the earliest assessment made after marling and liming had begun to increase aggregate production and value of lands, it is an unquestionable fact, that the general improvement had been greater and values much lower about 1828. And if this earlier time and greatest depression had been marked by an assessment, then made, the full increased value of lands from that time would have appeared at least $30,000,000 in 1850, instead of $17,250,000, counting from the already partially advanced improvement and enhanced values of 1838. However, even if these, my deductions and estimates, go for nothing, there will still remain the proof, by official documents, of the actual increase of value of lands in twelve years, of $17,250,000, or nearly $1,500,000 yearly. Now bear in mind that these are not the results of the improving of all the tide-water region, nor all of its much smaller arable portion, but probably of not more than one-twentieth of the cultivated land. All the remainder, if uncultivated, is stationary; and, if cultivated, is generally in a continued course of exhaustion; and the small quantity of enriched land had first to make up for all deficiencies of the impoverished, and lessening of production throughout the whole tide-water district; and after all such deductions, still exhibited a clear surplus of $17,250,000 of increased aggregate value. This is the

In a communication recently made to the State Agricultural Society of Virginia, on "some of the results of the improvement of lands by calcareous manures, on public interests in Virginia, in the increase of production, population, general wealth, and revenue to the treasury."

result of but the beginning, and a very recent beginning, of measures for improvement, executed in every case imperfectly, often injudiciously, and sometimes injuriously, and altogether on less than one twentieth of the space on which calcareous manures are available. The great

omitted space will hereafter be fertilized in the same manner. Then the actual increase of value of lands, founded on increased production, will be counted by hundreds of millions of dollars. And this anticipated enormous amount of fertility and capital to be created might have been now in possession if our improvements by calcareous manures had been begun 30 years earlier, instead of there having been continued, through all that time, the progress of wasting and destroying the remaining powers of the soil. South Carolina began exhausting culture much later, and is now full 50 years less advanced towards the lowest depth of that full descent which we had nearly completed. If that future of 50 years of continued exhaustion could be now cut off, and the improvement of Lower South Carolina, by calcareous manures, could be at once begun, and continued, the loss of at least $100,000,000 of now remaining value would be saved, and a gain of $300,000,000, from improvement, would be reached sooner by the same 50 years. This would be better, by all this great value, than even the following out precisely the first sinking and now rising course of Lower Virginia. In that region, the cultivators waited until the fertility of the land had so nearly expired that it was supposed to be in articulo mortis--at the last gasp-before the work of resuscitation was begun. The comparative results of the opposite systems of improving and exhausting cultivation may be thus illustrated: Suppose a certain investment of capital will yield 20 per cent. of present annual interest, or net products, and two persons invest equal amounts in the business: the more provident one draws or spends but fifteen per cent. annually of his income, and leaves the remaining five per cent. to accumulate, and to be added to his interest-bearing capital. The other proprietor draws each year, and spends all of the certain and annual average returns of his capital, and five per cent. more of the capital stock itself. He reasons (may I say it) like many cottonplanters, and infers that so small a detraction from his capital will do no harm, as he will have so much the more of quick returns for immediate use or reinvestment. In less than twenty years, one of these individuals will have doubled his original capital, and also his twenty per cent. income, and the other will have exhausted his entire fund. But it may be said (as alleged in regard to the squanderers of fertility) that, as the latter person had received so much more of annual returns at first, he might have reinvested, and thus have retained his over-draughts of annual products. If a planter-and, of course, his over-draughts had been from the fertility of his land—he might have bought another plantation, to work and to wear out in like manner. But even if so, wherein would be the gain? He would have had the disadvantages of a change of investment, of removal, and making a new settlement. But where one man would so save and reinvest his over-draughts from his capital, two others would use, or perhaps spend theirs, as if so much actual clear profit, or permanent income. When the land is utterly worn out, and the total capital of fertility wasted, (or the small remnant is incapable of paying the expense of further cultivation,) it will most generally be found that the channels into which the early full streams of income

377

flowed are then as dry as the sources. follows that the planter who exhausts his land also lessens his general I do not mean that it necessarily wealth. Would that it were so! for, then, such certain and immediate retribution would speedily stop the whole course of wrong doing, and prevent all the consequent evils. It may be rarely, and it might be never the case, that the exhauster of land becomes absolutely poorer during the operation. He will have helped to impoverish his country, and to ruin it finally, (by the same general policy being continued;) he will have destroyed as much of God's bounties as the wasted fertility, if remaining, would have supplied forever; and as many human beings as those supplies would have supported will be prevented from existing. And yet the mighty destroyer may have increased his own wealth; nevertheless, he does not escape his own, and even the largest, share of the general loss he has caused. While thus destroying-say $20,000 worth of fertility, the planter, by the exercise of industry, economy, and talent in other departments of his business, or from other resources, may have grown richer by $10,000. But if, as I believe is always true, it is as cheap and profitable to save as to waste fertility in the whole term of culture, then the planter, in this case, might have gained in all $30,000 of capital if he had saved instead of wasting the original productive power of his land. Even if admitting the common fallacy which prevails in every newly-settled country-that it is profitable to each individual cultivator to wear out his land, still, by his doing so, and all his fellowproprietors doing the like, while each one might be adding to his indi. vidual wealth, the joint labors of all would be exhausting the common stock of wealth, and greatly impairing the common welfare and interest of all. The average life of a man is long enough to reduce the fertility of his cultivated land to one half, or less. Thus, one generation of exhausting cultivators, if working together, would reduce their country to one-half of its former production, and, in proportion, would be reduced the general income, wealth, and means of living-population and the products of taxation-and, in time, would as much decline the measure of moral, intellectual, and social advantages-the political power and military strength of the commonwealth. The destructive operations of the exhausting cultivator have a most important influence-far beyond his own lands and his own personal interests. He reduces the wealth and population of his country and the world, and obstructs the progress and benefits of education, the social virtues, and even moral and religious culture. For, upon the productions of the earth depend, more or less, the measure to be obtained by the people of any country, of these and all other blessings which a community can enjoy. There is, however, one very numerous class of exceptions to this general rule, which is, when an agricultural people, or interest, is tributary to some other people or interest, whether foreign or at home. Such exceptions are presented in different modes: by the agriculture of Cuba being tributary to Spain; of many other countries to their own despotic and oppressive home governments; and of the Southern States of this confederacy, to greater or less extent, to different pauper and plundering interests of the Northern States, which, through legislative enactments, have been mainly fostered and supported by levying tribute upon Southern agriculture and industry.

The reason why such woful results of impoverishment of lands as

have been stated are not seen to follow the causes, and speedily, is, that the causes are not all in action at once and equal progress. The labors of exhausting culture, also, are necessarily suspended as each of the cultivator's fields is successively worn out. And when tillage so ceases, and any space is thus left at rest, nature immediately goes to work to recruit and replace as much as possible of the wasted fertility, until another destroyer, after many years, shall return again to waste, and in much shorter time than before, the smaller stock of fertility so renewed. Thus the whole territory, so scourged, is not destroyed at one operation. But though these changes and partial recoveries are continually, to some extent, counteracting the labors for destruction, still the latter work is in general progress. It may require (as it did in my native region) more than two hundred years from the first settlement to reach the lowest degradation; but that final result is not the less certainly to be produced by the continued action of the causes. I have witnessed, at home, nearly the last stage of decline. But I have also witnessed, subsequently, and over large spaces, more than the complete resuscitation of the land, and great improvement in almost every respect, not only to individual, but to public, interests; not only in regard to fertility and wealth, but also in mental, moral, and social improvement. Inasmuch as my remarks would seem to ascribe the most exhausting system of cultivation especially to the slave-holding States, the enemies of the institution of slavery might cite my opinions, if without the explanation which will now be offered, as indicating that slave-labor and exhausting tillage were necessarily connected as cause and effect. I readily admit that our slave-labor has served greatly to facilitate our exhausting cultivation; but only because it is a great facility-far superior to any found in the non-slave-holding States-for all agricultural operations. Of course, if our operations are exhausting of fertility, then certainly our command of cheaper and more abundant labor enables us to do the work of exhaustion, as well as all other work, more rapidly and effectually. But if directed to improving, instead of destroying, fertility, then this great and valuable aid of slave labor will as much more advance improvement as it has generally heretofore advanced exhaustion. The enunciation of this proposition is, perhaps, enough. But if any, from prejudice, should deny or doubt its truth, they may see the practical proofs on all the most improved and profitable farms of Lower and Middle Virginia. On the lands of our best improvers and farmers such as Richard Sampson, Hill Carter, John A. Selden, William B. Harrison, Willoughby Newton, and many others-slavelabor is used, not only exclusively, and in larger than usual proportion, (because more required on very productive land,) but is deemed indispensable to the greatest profits, and operating to produce more increase of fertility and more agricultural profit than can be exhibited from any purely agricultural labors and capital north of Mason and Dixon's line. There is another and stronger reason for the greater exhausting effects of Southern agriculture, and therefore of tillage by slave labor: the great crops of all the slave-holding States, and especially of the more Southern-corn, tobacco, and cotton-are all tilled crops. The frequent turning and loosening of the earth, by the plough and hoe-and far more when continued, without intermission, year after year-advance the decomposition and waste all organic matter, and expose the soil of all