wrongdoer. Because the Federal Govern-
ment, by persistent and unwarrantable en-
croachments upon the rights of slaveholders
in Maryland, has well near practically an-
nulled and abrogated those rights, the sov-
ereign people of the State are to-day invited
to give in the most solemn and emphatic
manner their indorsement and to legalize
those acts of usurpation and aggression, and
to complete the work of demolition so au-
spiciously begun by the powers at Washing-
ton.
Mr. President, I deny that the destruction
of slavery in the BORDER=0 States was the legiti-
mate and necessary consequence of this de-
plorable civil strife. This war could have
been waged and prosecuted with equal suc-
cess and vigor without interfering with the
institution in Maryland, or in any of the
BORDER=0 States. Facts within my own obser-
vation and knowledge lead me to such a con-
clusion. When the Federal military first
made their appearance in my part of the
State, I saw repeatedly runaway slaves de-
livered over to their owners by the officers in
command. This policy could have been ad-
hered to, or upon the issuing and enforcement
of the proper orders, negroes could have been
prevented from entering the lines. But these
things had scarcely reached the ear of those
in power at Washington, before the edict
went forth making it a penal offence for any
officer in the military service of the United
States to be engaged in the rendition of fugi-
tive slaves. From that moment the Federal
camps became a general rendezvous and re-
ceptacle for runaway slaves. Then com-
menced that exodus of the slave population
which has continued uninterruptedly ever
since. This first step of the Government was
closely followed by the virtual repeal of the
fugitive slave law in the District of Colum-
bia; a citizen of Prince George's county, in
attempting to assert his rights under that
law, and armed with the writ from the United
States Commissioner, being forcibly seized
and thrown into prison, and his slaves taken
from him and set at liberty. Soon this move-
ment of the Government against slavery cul-
minated in the issuing of the Emancipation
Proclamation; and for three long years our
State has been the theatre of aggressions and
outrages upon the rights of slaveowners, so
known of all men, that even a bare reference
to them here is entirely unnecessary.
Much has been said about the character of
the legislation of the Northern States on this
subject, their humanity, their magnanimity,
their disinterested patriotism hare been more
than once the; theme of stump orators, fa-
natical women, and men holding places in
the councils of the nation.
I have investigated the legislation of many
of the Northern States on this subject, and
in every instance I have found that their
laws were gradual and prospective in their |
operation. None of them conferred freedom
on the slaves then in being, but simply pro-
vided that all born after a certain time should
be free. If the legislature of any Northern
State ever did pass a law giving freedom to
the slaves then in being, it was always pro-
spective in its character, thus enabling the
owner before the appointed time for freedom
arrived to sell out his valuable slaves to
Southern purchasers, thereby attaining the
object sought, which was not so much the
emancipation of the slaves as the removal of
them from their midst. Those who may de-
sire more information on this point will find
in Kent's Commentaries, vol. 2d, a reference
to the statutes of New York, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, and many others of the North-
ern States.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE:. Does the gentleman say
that there is any reference to Massachusetts
on that subject?
Mr. EDELEN. I think I am not mistaken.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I think the gentleman
will find that be is.
Mr. EDELEN. Do I understand then the
gentleman to say that Massachusetts is the«
solitary exception ?
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I do not say it is the
solitary exception. I say there is nothing
on that subject in the statutes of Massa-
chusetts.
Mr. EDELEN. I think, sir, that I am not
mistaken. Certainly what I have said is
true of the legislation in New York, Penn-
sylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, and other
Northern States, and in vindication of my
position, I will read from my scattered notes
a brief extract from Kent's Commentaries,
vol. 2, page 289:
"In Pennsylvania, by act of March 1st,
1780, and in New Jersey, by acts of February
14th, 1784, and 24th of February, 1820,
passed for the gradual extinction of slavery,
this great evil has been removed from them,
and all children born of a slave after July
4th, 1804, were declared free.
"So in Connecticut statutes were passed in
1784 and 1797, which have in their gentle
and gradual operation nearly, if not totally,
extinguished slavery in that State."
And so, Mr. President, without going more
into detail, it will be found upon examina-
tion that the legislation of New York and
other Northern State's upon this subject is of
the character I have just indicated.
What was the result of this legislation?
Did it have the effect to confer freedom on
the slaves, or to transfer them from their
Northern homes to more Southern climes?
I have no statistics at hand which enable me
to give a positive answer to this question;
but those who know the proverbial trait of the
Northern character, will beready to conclude
with me that under the operation of the
laws of removal in the Northern States, mis-
called emancipation, few, if any, of their |
