The subject which ruffles the surface of public affairs most, at present, is furnished by the transmission of the "Territory" of Missouri from a state of nonage to a maturity for self-Government, and for a membership in the Union. Among the questions involved in it, the one most immediately interesting to humanity is the question whether a toleration or prohibition of slavery Westward of the Mississippi would most extend its evils. The human part of the argument against the prohibition turns on the position, that whilst the importation of slaves from abroad is precluded, a diffusion of those in the Country tends at once to meliorate their actual condition, and to facilitate their eventual emancipation. Unfortunately, the subject, which was settled at the last session of Congress by a mutual concession of the parties, is reproduced on the arena by a clause in the Constitution of Missouri, distinguishing between free persons of colour and white persons, and providing that the Legislature of the new State shall exclude from it the former. What will be the issue of the revived discussion is yet to be seen. The case opens the wider field, as the Constitution and laws of the different States are much at variance in the civic character giving to free persons of colour; those of most of the States, not excepting such as have abolished slavery, imposing various disqualifications, which degrade them from the rank and rights of white persons. All these perplexities develope more and more the dreadful fruitfulness of the original sin of the African trade.113

      To F. Corbin

      I do not mean to discuss the question how far slavery and farming are incompatible. Our opinions agree as to the evil, moral, political, and economical, of the former. I still think, notwithstanding, that under all the disadvantages of slave cultivation, much improvement in it is practicable. Proofs are annually taking place within my own sphere of observation; particularly where slaves are held in small numbers, by good masters and managers. As to the very wealthy proprietors, much less is to be said. But after all, (protesting against any inference of a disposition to undertake the evil of slavery,) is it certain that in giving to your wealth a new investment, you would be altogether freed from the cares and vexations incident to the shape it now has? If converted into paper, you already feel some of the contingencies belonging to it; if into commercial stock, look at the wrecks every where giving warning of the danger. If into large landed property, where there are no slaves, will you cultivate it yourself? Then beware of the difficulty of procuring faithful or complying labourers. Will you dispose of it in leases? Ask those who have made the experiment what sort of tenants are to be found where an ownership of the soil is so attainable. It has been said that America is a country for the poor, not for the rich. There would be more correctness in saying it is the country for both, where the latter have a relish for free government; but, proportionally, more for the former than for the latter.114

      To General la Fayette.

      The negro slavery is, as you justly complain, a sad blot on our free country, though a very ungracious subject of reproaches from the quarter which has been most lavish of them. No satisfactory plan has yet been devised for taking out the stain. If an asylum could be found in Africa, that would be the appropriate destination for the unhappy race among us. Some are sanguine that the efforts of an existing Colonization Society will accomplish such a provision; but a very partial success seems the most that can be expected. Some other region must, therefore, be found for them as they become free and willing to emigrate. The repugnance of the whites to their continuance among them is founded on prejudices, themselves founded on physical distinctions, which are not likely soon, if ever, to be eradicated. Even in States, Massachusetts for example, which displayed most sympathy with the people of colour on the Missouri question, prohibitions are taking place against their becoming residents. They are every where regarded as a nuisance, and must really be such as long as they are under the degradation which public sentiment inflicts on them. They are at the same time rapidly increasing from manumissions and from offspring, and of course lessening the general disproportion between the slaves and the whites. This tendency is favorable to the cause of a universal emancipation."115

      To Dr. Morse

      Queries.

      1. Do the planters generally live on their own estates?

      2. Does a planter with ten or fifteen slaves employ an overlooker, or does he overlook his slaves himself?

      3. Obtain estimates of the culture of Sugar and Cotton, to show what difference it makes where the planter resides on his estate, or where he employs attorneys, overlookers, &c.

      4. Is it a common or general practice to mortgage slave estates?

      5. Are sales of slave estates very frequent under execution for debt and what proportion of the whole may be thus sold annually?

      6. Does the Planter possess the power of selling the different branches of a family separate?

      7. When the prices of produce, Cotton Sugar, &c., are high, do the Planters purchase, instead of raising, their corn and other provisions?

      8. When the prices of produce are low, do they then raise their own corn and other provisions?

      9. Do the negroes fare better when the Corn, &c., is raised upon their master's estate or when he buys it?

      10. Do the tobacco planters in America ever buy their own Corn or other food, or do they always raise it?

      11. If they always, or mostly, raise it, can any other reason be given for the differences of the system pursued by them and that pursued by the Sugar and Cotton planters than that cultivation of tobacco is less profitable than that of Cotton or Sugar?

      12. Do any of the Planters manufacture the packages for their product, or the clothing for their negroes and if they do, are their negroes better clothed than when clothing is purchased?

      13. Where, and by whom, is the Cotton bagging of the Brazils made? is it principally made by free men or slaves?

      14. Is it the general system to employ the negroes in task work, or by the day?

      15. How many hours are they generally at work in the former case? how many in the latter? Which system is generally preferred by the master? which by the slaves?

      16. Is it common to allow them a certain portion of time instead of their allowance of provisions? In this case, how much is allowed? Where the slaves have the option, which do they generally choose? On which system do the slaves look the best, and acquire the most comforts?

      17. Are there many small plantations where the owners possess only a few slaves? What proportion of the whole may be supposed to be held in this way?

      18. In such cases, are the slaves treated or almost considered a part of the family?

      19. Do the slaves fare best when their situations and that of the master are brought nearest together?

      20. In what state are the slaves as to religion or religious instruction?

      21. Is it common for the slaves to be regularly married?

      22. If a man forms an attachment to a woman on a different or distant plantation, is it the general practice for some accommodation to take place between the owners of the man and woman, so that they may live together?

      23. In the United States of America, the slaves are found to increase at about the rate of 3 P cent. P annum. Does the