adopted by the convention. The apology for
restoring free colored minors to practical slave-
ry, under the guise of benevolence to them, is
abominable.
It appears from the last census that of ne-
gro slaves, male and female, under the ages
of twenty-one for males and eighteen for fe-
males, there were in 1860, in Maryland, 48,-
623. These are they who are included in the
language of this section, all of whom, eman-
cipated by this constitution, are to be restored
to practical slavery under the guise of benev-
olence. In addition to that, I find that there
are over the age of sixty-five and under the
age of seven, of males and females, an aggre-
gate of 21,605. Now the gentleman from
Baltimore county who last addressed the con-
vention (Mr. Ridgely, ) said that it was to pro-
vide for the helpless by indenting them to
their former masters. I wonder if anybody
ever supposed that the former masters want
the helpless and very young children. No,
sir; it is when they begin to become useful,
when they can be of service to their former
masters, that they will take them. If you
take out of those whom we intend to emanci-
pate from slavery by the 23rd article of the
bill of rights, and who may be apprenticed
under this provision, those under the age of
seven, there will be 29,557 who will practi-
cally come under this provision; and if you
take out from the total number of slaves, those
under the ages of twenty-one for males and
eighteen for ternaries, and over the age of six-
ty-five, there remains an aggregate of only
36,027.
Now we have heard gentleman upon this
floor speaking of the thousands who have been
taken and put into the military service of the
United States; and we know that a large
number between those ages have taken leg
bail and walked off, and we have heard the
clamor of the families taken off by the mili-
tary and removed from their homes. Making
a reasonable deduction, upon the lowest basis
you please, and you cannot put it at less than
fifty per cent. of the ages last mentioned taken
away by these various causes, which would
leave about 18,000 whom we propose to eman-
cipate by the 23rd article of the bill of rights.
Much stress has been laid upon the benevolence
of this proposition of the gentleman
from Caroline (Mr. Todd;) but I confess my
surprise that a, minister of the gospel should
never have said, in all his views of that un-
fortunate race, one word in advocacy of their
being educated in this transition state—not
one word.
It has also been said that a preference should
be given to their former masters. I deny the
proposition. I think they of all men have the
least claim upon any ground to the apprenticeship
of these freed minors. Why? Because
there is a great deal of difference between the
master of an apprentice as contemplated under
the apprentice system heretofore existing in |
this State, and the slave master, who must of
necessity feel some desire to perpetuate the
feeling of dominion which be has been accus-
tomed to exercise.
So far from the friends of this section being
actuated by feelings of benevolence, I have
seen no evidence yet that they are disposed to
take the helpless adults or the helpless infants,
and provide for either of them; but those who
are just coming into usefulness, who are at an
age when education is desirable, as I maintain
it is) and who can pay by their labor for their
support, are to be sent back to their former
masters.
If this proposition contained a provision
that the consent of the parents should be ob-
tained, which has been studiously avoided by
the convention, I should think this plea of be-
nevolence had some foundation. But so far
from that, I have seen every one who is an ad-
vocate of this proposition, so far as I am aware,
carefully voting to prohibit the assent of the
parent, the natural guardian of these free mi-
nor children. If preference was due to their
former master on the ground that his relation
would incline him to greater humanity than
any other person, and if that is the reason for
the preference, I ask who would be more likely
to appreciate that than the parents, the natural
guardians of the parties interested ?
Again, sir, I find from the statistics of the
State—and I will not go through all the fig-
ures—that taking the value of the labor of the
males between the ages of twenty-one and six-
ty-five at $100 per annum, and taking the value
of the labor of the females between the
ages of eighteen and sixty-fire at $50, and
taking the numbers from the census of 1860,
the aggregate value of their labor was $44,-
326,616.67 in exact figures. That, sir, for forty
years, was I suppose about the average value of
the labor that they rendered without one cent
of wages being paid. Now why do you pro-
pose to continue the labor of a portion of this
race for ten or fifteen years, without any re-
muneration? What is unrequitted labor but
slavery ?
The gentleman from Baltimore county who
last addressed the convention, says that the
State law is identical in its purview and ob-
ject with the proposal of the gentleman from
Caroline'. I have no objection to that; if we
were satisfied with that there would be no ne-
cessity at all of introducing an article which
contains such dangerous elements as the one
before us. I am not at all deceived by any
arguments made in advocacy of this proposi-
tion. I can see in it a partial slavery, a practical
slavery to which I will never consent.—
And I will further say that such aproposition
was anticipated early in the campaign in my
county; and one of the resolutions adopted
in our county convention pledged us faithfully
to resist any attempt at negro apprenticeship
in this State.
Mr. MARKEY. Adult; not minor. |
