It is difficult for the present writer to see the distinction which Mr. Clark desires to draw between the effect of the presence of the negro and the presence of slavery. Well enough to assert that the capital of the North and of Europe was mobile enough to flow across the Atlantic and across Mason and Dixon's line were a profit in manufacture in the South known to be assured, but the fact is that capital did not flow in for industrial purposes because bright manufacturing prospects had not been proved out, and this largely because home enterprise was a laggard while slavery claimed the section's capital resources for cotton cultivation. The absence of immigration was as certainly the effect of slavery.[62] While it is true that for long years after emancipation, and continuing to this day, the influence of the presence of the negro in restraining inflow of immigrants, particularly of artizans, it is evident the lessening of this deterrent and the removal of other nearly equal drawbacks could not proceed or commence while slavery existed. It should be clear to anyone that from the point of view of the independent white workman the presence of the negro in slavery held as a far more forcible objection than the presence of the negro in freedom. His killing economic competition and his radiated social poison were beyond any dispute and beyond prospect of remedy until he was made at least a free producer. There could not, in the second place, be development of schools and roads, and there could not be fraternization of work-people, while slavery continued. And the prospect for immigration for the South has taken its rise from the Civil War. It was slavery that made plantation self-sufficiency in primitive needs universal, that made isolation and physical barriers to intercourse. The credit system in its hey-day rested in large degree upon supply by the factor of all industrial products, which needs must be sustained so long as every local energy was foredoomed for absorption into cotton growing.