there is a much larger consuming population
And so on, ad infinitum.
If I am an abolitionist, I am little if any
thing more than were the immortal fathers of
the republic. Washington and Adams, Ran-
dolph and Jefferson, were all in sentiment in-
imical to slavery, and freely expressed opin-
ions adverse to the continuance of the insti-
tution, I do not believe that the opinions of
these great men can settle the question either
one way or the other; but I regard, and I
think every gentleman within the sound of
my voice regards their opinions as being en-
titled to great respect. I therefore refer to
them, and only refer to them so far as to read
two small extracts from the great, the im-
mortal Father of his country. The first is
from a letter to Mr. John F. Mercer, dated
September, 1786, in which he says:
"I never mean, unless some particular cir-
cumstances should compel me to it, to possess
another slave by purchase. It being among
my first wishes to see some plan adopted by
which slavery in this country may be abol-
ished by law." [Irving's Life. of Washing-
ton, vol. V., page 298.)
The second is from a letter written eleven
years afterwards to his nephew, Lawrence
Lewis, dated August, 1797, in which he
.says:
" I wish from my Soul that the Legislature
of this State could see the policy of a gradual
abolition of slavery, it might prevent much
future mischief." [Ibid, page 299.]
I offer these opinions for whatever they
may be worth, believing at the same time
that we are more competent judges of the prac-
tical workings and quite as competent judges
of the morality of slavery as even the great
Washington himself.
Mr. President, I am in favor of the earliest
practicable abolition of slavery in the State—
and of the adoption of the 23d article of the
Declaration of Rights as we have received it
from .the hands of the committee, without the
annexation or interpolation of any amend-
ment thereto or therein, for the two reasons
which I have feebly attempted to elucidate.
First, because I am persuaded to believe that
slavery, as it has heretofore existed in this
State, is not necessary to the happiness of
anybody and especially the negro who has
been the subject of slavery; and inasmuch as
it is not thus necessary, it is in violation of
the spirit and, even the letter of the moral
law. Secondly, because I think the future
welfare of our State demands it.
Before closing, I wish to make a remark in
relation to the matter of State compensation.
This article fails to make any provision for
the compensation of those who may happen
to lose by the sudden abolition of slave-
ry, and fails to empower the Legislature to
make any such provision, and very justly
fails to do so.
Mr. President, slavery has already been |
abolished. I contend that there is not a sin-
gle slave in the State. Let us see if I am
correct in saying there is not a single slave in
the State. If one of your servants saw fit to
approach you to-morrow morning and say:
"I intend to leave your service forever, and
ere another day passes over my head I shall
be beyond the western hills to take up my resi-
dence with astrange people," you would not
think it worth your while to take any steps
to prevent his absconding. Is he a slave who
can approach his master and use such lan-
guage as this with impunity? Certainly not.
Then, sir, slavery is already destroyed in this
State, and really it is not the institution of
slavery which we propose to do away with,
but simply the status of slavery. All we
propose to do is to wipe off from our statute
books all, recognition of the institution which
has already ceased to exist.
I submit to gentlemen thinking differently
from myself, if it is the fault of the State that
the slaves have been emancipated in this State
or in any of the States south of it. Did the
honest working men of this State have any-
thing to do with it? Did me people or the
State or any party in the State bring about
this radical change? Had the Governor of the
State any band in it? or had any of the State
authorities any hand in it?
Then, sir, I want to know, if neither the
State, nor any of the State authorities, nor
the people, nor any considerable portion of
the people had anything to do with the break-
ing up of the institution in this State, upon
what principle of justice can gentlemen claim
a compensation at the hands of the State?
Was it the fault, I again ask, of the honest,
hard-fisted working men of the State, the
small farmers of the State, the merchants of
Baltimore, or the people of any of the Western
counties? If not, then why should they be
compelled to pay for it? Had the sudden
emancipation of the slaves been under their
control, you and I would still have been
slaveholders; therefore, I am honestly of
the opinion that the State ought not to be
taxed for the destruction of property, for
which destruction it is not in the smallest de-
gree to be held responsible.
But, suppose gentlemen see fit to contend
that slavery is. not dead—that they are yet
slaveholders. For the argument's sake, I will
admit what they say to be true—then what?
Are they willing to take for their negroes a
fair market price? Are they willing to take
$20 for good men hands—$10 for women and
$5 for children? No, no; they will want to
be paid 4 to $5-00 for a servant which they
could sell nowhere for the smallest amount I
have named; and if they cannot get more
than that amount, any compensation would
not satisfy them. .
I am willing to make another admission
for the sake of the argument. Suppose slave-
ry does exist in the State, and suppose further, |
