The Continental Monthly, Vol V. Issue III. March, 1864

Continental Monthly , Vol V.
Issue III.
by Various

The Project Gutenberg EBook of Continental Monthly , Vol V. Issue
III.
March, 1864, by Various This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere
at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it,
give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: Continental Monthly , Vol V. Issue III. March, 1864 Devoted to
Literature and National Policy
Author: Various
Release Date: July 17, 2006 [EBook #18848]
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK
CONTINENTAL MONTHLY ***

Produced by Joshua Hutchinson, Janet Blenkinship and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by Cornell
University Digital Collections)

THE
CONTINENTAL MONTHLY:
DEVOTED TO
LITERATURE AND NATIONAL POLICY
VOL. V.--MARCH, 1864.--No. III.

AMERICAN FINANCES AND RESOURCES.
LETTER NO. III. OF HON. ROBERT J. WALKER.
LONDON, 10 Half Moon Street, Piccadilly, December 3d, 1863.
It is generally believed, even when the American rebellion should be
suppressed, that there would be a great loss of wealth and resources on
the part of the United States. As an economical question the great truth
is not disputed by me, that, as a general rule, wars by a waste of
property, by large expenditures, and by the withdrawal of so much
labor from the pursuits of industry, impair the material interests of the
nation. The influence of such considerations in the United States is not
denied; but there are in the cause of this contest, as well as in its effects
and consequences, results which will more than compensate for such
losses. Slavery was the sole cause of this rebellion, and the result will
be the reconstruction of the Union, with slavery everywhere
extinguished. On this assumption, the question is, whether the
substitution of free for slave labor throughout every State and Territory
of the Union will not, as a question of augmented wealth and
invigorated industry, far more than compensate for the losses incurred
in the contest. Reasoning inductively, it might well be supposed that
the willing labor of educated and energetic freemen would be far more
productive than the forced labor of ignorant, unwilling, and uneducated
slaves. In the realm of science, as well as in the direction of labor,

knowledge is power, education is wealth and progress; and that this is
applicable to the masses who compose a community, and especially to
the working classes, is demonstrated by our American official Census.
In proof of this position, I will proceed by a reference to the official
tables of our Census of 1860, to show not only in particular Slave
States, as compared with other Free States, whether old or new, Eastern
or Western, or making the comparison of the aggregate of all the Slave
with the Free States, the annual product of the latter per capita is more
than double that of the Slave States. I begin with Maryland as
compared with Massachusetts, because Maryland, in proportion to her
area, has greater natural advantages than any one of the Slave or Free
States; and if the comparison with the Free States is most unfavorable
to her, it will be more so as to any other Southern State; as the Census
shows that, from 1790 to 1860, as well as from 1850 to 1860, Maryland
increased in population per square mile more rapidly than any other
slaveholding State.
We must consider the area, soil, climate, mines, hydraulic power,
location, shore line, bays, sounds, and rivers, and such other causes as
affect the advance of wealth and population.
The relative progress of Maryland has been slow indeed. The
population of the Union, by the Census of 1790, was 3,929,827, of
which Maryland, containing then 319,728, constituted a twelfth part
(12.29). In 1860, the Union numbered 31,445,080, and Maryland
687,034, constituting a forty-fifth part (45.76). In 1790, the Free States
numbered 1,968,455, Maryland's population then being equal to one
sixth (6.12); but, in 1860, the population of the Free States was
18,920,078, Maryland's number then being equal to one twenty-seventh
part (27.52). But, if Maryland had increased as rapidly from 1790 to
1860 as the whole Union, her proportion, one twelfth part, would have
made her numbers in 1860, 2,620,315; and if her proportional increase
had equalled that of the Free States, her ratio, one sixth, would have
made her population in 1860, 3,153,392.
I take the areas from the report (November 29, 1860) of the
Commissioner of the General Land Office, where they are for the first

time accurately given, 'excluding the water surface.' The population is
taken from the Census Tables. I compare first Massachusetts and
Maryland, because they are maritime and old States, and