edness of its nature. Then again it has been
discussed upon a liberal, basis, and in a inoral
aspect. Now, so far as either of these propo-
sitions are concerned, I am perfectly indiffer-
ent. I have no conscientious scruples about
holding slaves. I am now connected with
the institution to a limited extent, and have
been ever since my boyhood, and shall remain
so until the tenure is dissolved and broken
by the voice of the people at the ballot box,
upon the ratification of this Constitution. I
have no complaint at all to allege against
slavery or slaveholders for the tenure of this
description of property. However, so far as
Scripture authority has been adduced to jus-
tify slavery, I think by false interpretation,
yon can find Scripture for any doctrine you
may desire or attempt to establish in ordinary
life. Grant that slavery was recognized in a
certain form and at different times in the
Scriptures. That itself does not sanctify the
institution for us; that of itself does not
justify the tenure of slavery, when it can no
longer be made valuable and useful to those
who seek to control it. I leave that to the
conscience of every man, whether he be a
slaveholder or a non-slaveholder. That is a
matter he must determine between himself
and his God; and there I leave it.
But as a national institution, I deny that it
ever had any political existence. I deny
that it ever had any existence, political or
domestic, but purely as a State institution.
It is true, as has been stated here, that the
right of property in slaves was recognized in
the Constitution of the United States—that is
a fact—and also by the State of Maryland, and
the other States that are part. and parcel of
this Union, and controlled by the Constitu-
tion of the United States. And I bold that
the State, in its sovereign capacity, has the
right to control this institution in any man-
ner its policy may dictate. If it is the inter-
est then, of the State of Maryland to abolish
slavery at this particular time, it is right and
just that it should be abolished. If the ma-
jority of the people of this State say that
slavery shall no longer exist on the statute
books of this State, or as a part of the organic
law of the State, then it is right it should be
abolished; if there is any truth in that an-
cient and quaint maxim—"the greatest good
to the greatest number."
I said that no permanent peace could ever
exist between the North and the South, so
long as the institution of slavery was a dis-
turbing element, I maintain that position to
be true. Past experience shows that such a
peace could not possibly exist, where there
was such discordance of opinion and feeling
upon a question of such vital importance,
Why, sir, as far back as 1832, when the doc-
trine of nullification was rife in South Caro-
lina, when the question of the tariff at that
time was seized upon as the means by which
this glorious Union was to be severed, slavery |
was then the latent cause; the tariff was
taken hold of only as a mere weapon. And
why did they not succeed upon that question?
Because the South was a divided country
upon that question; they were not a unit
upon the subject of the tariff. The State of
Louisiana wanted protection for her sugar,
and be would not join in that crusade
against the General Government, and dis-
solve the Union. They found, then, that
that hobby would not avail their purpose;
and by the intervention of that stern old
patriot, Andrew Jackson, the whole scheme
was exploded and overthrown.
So the matter rested. Not, however, a
final rest; but on the contrary a new agita-
tion was commenced. Not on the part of the
North, as has been said by gentlemen on the
other side who have argued this question.
Who, for one moment, ever paid any atten-
tion to those wild fanatics, Wendell Phillips,
Theodore Parker, William Lloyd Garrison,
and the whole tribe of abolitionists? Who
among sensible men, ever respected their
opinions? What harm could they do? Could
they poison the minds of conservative men in
the loyal States upon this question? Their
only object was to keep up this agitation, and
to aid the North in producing this conflict,
for the purpose of breaking up this institution
of slavery. There can be no question about
that. But they were impotent as to numbers
and capacity, and never could have brought
about any such result by themselves.
I stated, as my second proposition, which
I supported in this connection, that slavery
is a support and material aid to the South in
carrying on this rebellion. Let us for one
moment refer to the statistics of slavery in the
South. There are nearly four millions of
slaves in the seceded States—or were. Say
that one half of that number, two millions,
are females; that leaves two millions of
males. Suppose that yon divide that number
into three parts, and lake off one-third for
children, boys and old men Yon have then
left over a million of effective men, who can
be mustered into the service and made sol-
diers to help to strike down this government.
Of this one million, if not taken into the mil-
itary service, and arrayed against this gov-
ernment, remain at home as producers, in
the place of their masters and their masters'
sons, who are able to enter the battle field ;
and who would necessarily have to be on
their sugar and cotton plantations, if it were
not for the fact that their negroes are there,
and to that extent do what is necessary to
carry on the rebellion. I think, therefore,
that the proclamation of President Lincoln,
freeing the slaves of the South, was a wise
proposition so far as it relates to the weaken-
ing of the rebellion. I grant you that it can
avail but little, unless the lines of the Federal
army are extended over the South, Bat it had
this effect; it became known throughout the |
