Who knew that I'd need the "Drug Humour" tag again the week after I created it?
Since I, personally, have this rigorously scholarly background in the literature, it occurs to me to wonder whether, given that producing tobacco is evidently quite hard, there isn't more to say.
"'[Comic Irishman identifies Nick as the Devil] . . .
Lest the reader get an exaggerated notion of Michael's credulity, it may be well to say that Nick had painted a few days before, in a fit of caprice, and that one-half of his face was black, and the other a deep red, while each of his eyes was surrounded with a circle of white, all of which had got to be a little confused in consequence of a night or two of orgies, succeeded by mornings in which the toilet had been altogether neglected. His dress, too, a blanket with tawdry red and yellow trimmings, with ornamented leggings and moccasins to correspond, had all aided in maintaining the accidental mystification. Mike followed his companion, growling out his discontent, and watching the form of the Indian, as the latter still went loping over the flat, having passed the captain, with a message to the barns.
So what's my point? Not much of one, except perhaps to set up a tobacco-vs-beaver divide along the Mason-Dixon Line, which is obviously a difficult sell, what with the whole "Tilsonburg" thing. I guess the argument is that the edge of the "secondary" range marks the plausible northern limit of commercial tobacco (cotton?) growing in North America. North of it, you sell your pond for corn and potato land; south of it, for plantations.