Abbeville (SC) Press and Banner, "The Future of Virginia," April 2, 1857

        From the South-Side Democrat.

         THE FUTURE OF VIRGINIA.

THE CHARLESTON MERCURY AND THE NEW YORK HERALD.

   We addressed ourselves, in our article of yesterday, to considerations touching the manner in which the "Northern Virginia Emigrant Aid Society" proposes, through its organ, the Hon. Mr. Thayer, to "relieve resuscitate and regenerate old Virginia." It is now our business to refer at some length to the results which, it is supposed, will flow from this grand emigrant aid project. But before entering upon the immediate object of this article, it may be well to premise that the arguments adduced by the New York Herald and the Charleston Mercury, in relation to the future of Virginia, are strikingly coincident. The Herald anticipates the sudden and almost magical change of Virginia into a free State. We have only to stand still and watch the rapid solution only to stand still and watch the rapid solution of the problem, according to Bennett. The Mercury does not think that the metamorphosis will take place quite as soon as the Herald predicts, but that "by the natural order of things and in the course of time," this result will be reached. Both papers agree as to the certain and inevitable destiny of Virginia--the only difference of opinion being merely a question of time. 

   We will submit the question to our contemporaries of the Mercury, if the company in which they are found on this subject does not entitle us to the presumption that their position is not impregnable. The Herald is proverbially inaccurate in all its statements of matters of fact, and is entirely unworthy of credit in the discussion of grave questions affecting the condition of the Southern States. We are willing to hope that the Mercury has not undertaken to express a decided and mature conviction as to the future of Virginia. Certainly, the declaration that the "predominance of free labor in Virginia is quite possible," must either have been made very loosely or after a very laborious and thorough investigation. In proposing to reply to some of the assumptions of the that respected journal, we shall presume, of course, that it means what it says. We will frankly confess, hower [however], that it is somewhat humiliating to be compelled to define the position of Virginia in relation to the slavery question, and to defend her from unjust suspicion of being a free State in embryo. 

   The argument of the Mercury is contained in the following extract:

    "The slave population of Virginia, by the last census, had increased but two percent--the white population some fifteen or twenty per cent. And, although this must be regarded as the combined result of the continual drain of slaves from Virginia to colonize and settle the new States, on the one hand, and the influx of white immigrants from the North and foreign countries, on the other, yet the fact that slave labor is not necessarily in that climate, under the pressure of public opinion from the neighboring States North, is ominous for the institution."

   We agree with our contemporary that there is a "continual drain of slaves from Virginia," and a constant "influx of white immigrants from the North and foreign countries," but we cannot allow that either circumstance is "ominous for the institution." What does the continued drain of slaves from Virginia really prove? It proves, beyond a doubt, that the institution is firmly rooted in the State. The alleged and the known cause of so many sales, is the fact that servants command such enormous prices. If there was the least danger of Virginia becoming a free State, this kind of property would necessarily be diminished greatly in value. There would be a general stampede among slaveholders--the negro market would fall.--But the revere of all this is known to be true. Negroes never brought better prices in Virginia then now, and, hence, as far as it goes, the fact alleged by the Mercury serves rather to demonstrate the stability of the institution. 

   The exodus of selaves [slaves] from Virginia--the small per cent of increase among this portion of our population as shown by the last census, and the high prices which this species of property is now commanding, are all the results of fixed and immutable commercial laws. When an owner of slaves sees that, by disposing of them and investing the accruing funds in other pursuits, he is able to make money by the operation, he will, as a general thing, follow the suggestions of money-making.--Wherever, the world over, there is a demand for any kind of property, there will, of necessity, be a supply--either limited or large. Wherever the supply is not very abundant, and the demand great, the price of property is always high. Just so in relation to the sale of negroes in Virginia.--The demand from the cotton growing States is necessarily very great, but only comparatively few persons desiring to dispose of slaves, as a matter of course, they are [illegible] to receive enormous sums. The Mercury would not conclude, because there was a continual drain of tobacco from Virginia, that it would ultimately become an anti-tobacco State. It is a little surprising then that thorough-going Southern journal did not apply that [illegible] of political economy to the [illegible] as it would in the other.

   The "continual drain," of which the Mercury speaks, while kept within proper bounds, will be found to benefit instead of injuring the institution of slavery in Virginia. It will promote its healthfulness and utility. It will carry off the worst and leave the best negroes behind. But it cannot exist much longer. Virginia will soon be, if she is not already, in the market for the purchase of slaves. Tobacco, the great staple of this State, will always create a demand for slave labor. It has been proven over and over again that slave labor is essential to the cultivation of that plant. 

   But, in order to show further that there need be no apprehension on the part of the Mercury that Virginia will ultimately become a free State, we beg leave to direct its attention to some very important facts. 

   In 1831, there was a strong feeling in this State in favor emancipation. The scheme was advocated by some of our best men as entirely feasible and proper. What is the feeling now? We assert that emancipation has few, if any distinguished supporters in Virginia. The agitation of the abolitionists has dissipated all such ideas from the popular brain. The institution of slavery is, to-day, more firmly established in the hearts and minds of Virginians than it ever was. As an evidence of this, we refer the Mercury to the constitution of the State, which refuses the master the privilege of emancipating his own slaves, if they are to remain in the State, and makes it obligatory on him to furnish each one with two hundred dollars, if they are to go out of the State. With regard to free negroes the law expressly declares that they shall be sold into slavery upon returning to the State, with a view of making it their home. Thus it will be seen that Virginia, by incorporating into her constitution the most rigid provisions as regards the institution of slavery, has hedged it in and thrown up bulwarks for its protection and defence which some of her Southern sisters have not felt themselves called on to do. 

   With Virginia domestic slavery is not a question of "expediency," as alleged by the Mercury. She goes down deeper into the argument than that. She has addressed herself to the defence of the institution on much higher grounds. She believes slavery to be a social, moral, political and intellectual blessing to the inferior race. She believes it to be the position which Providence designed the negro to occupy. She has watched the workings of free society, and found it the fruitful source of murder, theft, debauchery and infidelity. She is, therefore, content to remain with slavery a long time yet. All of her traditional influence and renown, all of her glorious memories, and all of her bright hopes, are inseparably interwoven with that humane and heaven-directed institution. If, under these circumstances, "the cotton States must look to themselves alone for defence," as suggested by the Mercury, Virginia cannot but admire their independence, although she is denied the honor of lending a helping hand.