this same fight would have to be gone over
again in the future. I am not willing to
shirk the responsibility, nor take it from the
shoulders of these southern people who are
now engaged in the fight. I am not willing
that other generations should charge us with
not settling the difficulty now when we have
the opportunity.
I am putting this matter in a very mild
form. There is a far more severe, a far less
charitable, and probably a far truer view of
it than this. But this is putting it in its best
shape; and in its best shape I submit that it
is riot what we as American citizens ought
to do, simply to patch up a quarrel and be-
queath to our children a heritage of endless
war and blood.
The experience of the past three years has
taught us that the government cannot exist
as a united government with the institution
of slavery in its midst. I do not intend to
go into an argument to show why this can-
not be. The ground has been gone through
in the course of the debate upon the 23d ar-
ticle of the bill of rights. That is my judg-
ment, and it is the judgment of the majority
of this convention, and I believe the votes
will show that it is the judgment of the ma-
jority of the people of the State of Maryland.
That being the result, I say that the people of
this State declare that African slavery shall
no longer exist in this State at any rate.
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles. Will the gentle-
man allow me to ask him a question? As I
understand the tenor of his argument, he is
opposed to the Union as it was. Is that the
fact?
Mr. PUGH. Most undoubtedly it is the fact
that I am opposed now to the Union as it was.
I am honest in that.
Mr. EDELEN. Will the gentleman allow
me to ask another question? Do I rightly
understand him to insist that he is opposed
to the preservation of the Union, except upon
the ground of the total abolition of slavery
throughout the whole southern country ?
Mr. PUGH. Yes, sir: if the gentleman
will allow me, I will give him my reasons.
Mr. EDELEN. That is being a rebel.
Mr. PUGH. No, sir. That construction can-
not be placed upon it. And I will show you
why. In 1861, I was in favor of the resolu-
tions of 1861. But as the gentleman from
Kent (Mr. Chambers) ably observed on a
former occasion, " The limes change, and we
change with them." I have lived to see the
day when it is my conviction that this nation
can never unite upon any other basis than
that of universal slavery or universal freedom
for the black race. Religiosly believing
that to be the true idea upon which this
government alone can exist, I simply prefer
universal freedom to universal slavery. I
need only ask the gentleman from Charles, to
refer to the history of this peculiar institu-
tion which has always been going on grasp- |
ing for more; and to submit to him that if
his ideas are correct of the benign influences
which characterize the condition of the Afri-
can race, the result will be that from these
causes, as well as from the cupidity of men,
the result will be that eventually this govern-
ment will be throughout its length and
breadth a slaveholding government. It ap-
pears to me that there are but two paths to
pursue; one leads to universal freedom, and
the other to universal 'slavery. The three
years of this war have helped to grind this
conviction deep into my heart. I do not say
that I entertained this view in 1861; but 1
do say that I entertain it now. And the
reason why I am in favor of the reconstruc-
tion of the Union upon a new basis in this
respect, is because I believe rather in univer-
sal freedom than in universal slavery. It
would be utterly impossible for me here to
show why I believe that this country cannot
exist as a Union without being all slave or
all free, in the limited time allowed for de-
bate; but I simply state the ground I occupy,
as a mere matter of opinion.
Mr. DENNIS. The gentleman from Cecil in
the course of his argument, has said that the
condition of things in 1861, does not exist
now, and consequently, that the course of
proceedings is different now. I would like
to know whether the course of proceedings
then was in accordance with the law, or the
course now, or whether the constitution has
changed ?
Mr. PUGH. I submitted also in the begin-
ning of my remarks, which the gentleman
may have forgotten, that the question as it
started was one question; that, as the war
went on progressing, it got to be a totally
different question; and to-day it was a ques-
tion, not only of the constitution, not only
of written law and their construction of it,
but of—
Mr. DENNIS. Then the gentleman admits
that the government is not carried on accord-
ing to the constitution now ?
Mr. PUGH No, sir; I do not admit so.
1 say that—
Mr. DENNIS. Then he says that it is carried
on according to the constitution now?
Mr. PUGH. I do not say whether it is ac-
cording to the constitution or not. If the
gentleman will let me proceed, and wait until
1 get through, be may understand my posi-
tion. I was saying that at the outset, in
1861, this course of proceeding was pursued.
But we have arrived at a point when it is not
solely a question of the constitution, or of
written law, but also a question of our exist-
ence as a people, which is before us. That is
the point I make. And that we might get
far beyond all such considerations, no man
can tell; and I suggested to the gentleman
from Somerset, that the time might arrive,
and I allude to it again; and that he would
cut a beautiful figure going over this deso- |
