Again, "It becomes us, therefore, to whom
the whole question rightfully belongs to
take immediate measures for its (slavery) re-
moval, and which should be no longer de-
layed than may be required by a proper
respect for those industrial pursuits with
which the institution has been so long and
so intimately interwoven, and a humane re-
gard tor the slave himself, which forbids us
to cast him all unprepared for so great a
change, too suddenly upon his feeble re-
sources."
If we turn now to the Legislative
departments of the State government we
find that at the session of 1861 and 1862
the General Assembly of Maryland com-
posed almost exclusively of Union men ex-
pressed views of the slavery question
differing only in phraseology and not in
substance from the executive teachings.
Resolutions No. 3, introduced by Hon.
William Price, declare in the preamble that
"The General Assembly of Maryland have
seen with concern certain indications at the
seat of the General Government of an in-
terference with the institution of slavery in
the slave-holding States, and cannot hesi-
tate to express their sentiments, and those
of the people they represent in regard to a
policy sco unwise and mischievous."
Resolutions No. 16, offered in the House
of Delegates by Mr. Donaldson, and amend-
ed by adcling the seventh resolution oil mo-
tion of Mr. Creswell, among other things
announce—
"That the loyalty of the people of Mary-
land to the General Government, establish-
ed by the Constitution, is untouched by any
shade of servility, and they must ever re-
gard with extreme jealousy all attempts,
from whatever quarter, to make the present
war for the restoraticin of the Union, the
means of interfering with the domestic in-
stitutions of the States; and they solemnly
protest against all schemes, the object or
tendency of which is to incite insurrection
a.mong the slaves, declaring the same
illegal, and calculated, if put in practice
to produce results too terrible to contem
plate."
And resolution seventh, after indorsing
"the course and policy of the President of
the United States in the conduct of the war
thus tar" in the name of the people of Ma-
ryland, declares that "assured by his firm
ness and honesty in the past, they confident
ly expect that in spite of the importunities
of pernicious fanatics, he will keep steadi-
ly in view his sworn duty to preserve, pro- |
tect and defend the Constitution of the
United States."
These resolutions were passed by the
Senate and House of Delegates with only
one or two dissenting votes in each House,
(see Journal of Senate p. 56, and Journal
of House p. 86,) and received the support
of Messrs. Goldsborough of Talbot, Presi-
dent of the Senate, Eichelberger, Berry,
Speaker, Creswell, Price, Matthews and
others, now prominent as the advocates of
emancipation. Permit me to say, however,
that I understand the President and the
gentleman from Baltimore county (Mr.
Berry) to be in favor of emancipation, but
that they are restrained by that conservative
influence which would provide compensa-
tion, and place them somewhere on the
common frontier referred to by Macauley.
And lastly, to bring down this recital of
the apparent change which amid the pro-
gressive strides of the times seems sweeping
over the State, I have only to ask you to
contrast the issues upon which the Conser-
vative Union Party battled in the campaign
last autumn, avowing as a cardinal principle
of its faith a " non-action policy " upon the
subject of slavery, with the remarks of Hon.
Thomas Swann, one of their leaders, made
last winter in this Hall, who promised
" to ride with whip and spur until every
valley and every hill-top shall feel the tramp
of his glorious mission, and the whole State
of Maryland, from its centre to its circum-
ference, shall be awakened to an edict of
universal emancipation." If, Mr. President,
you had seen his motions, you would have
thought that he was then astride of his Bu-
cephalus, fully booted and spurred for his
ride.
I have not referred, Mr. President, in any
fault-finding or acrimonious spirit to this
record of the past. I desire no criminations
or recriminations. But I do desire that
every one should be made to occupy their
true positions upon this question. I do not
mean to be understood as denying the right
of men in public stations to change an opin-
ion. I am even willing to give them the
benefit of the old adage—"wise men change
their opinions sometimes, fools never." Let
these gentlemen candidly avow the error of
their past political course—let them admit
that they have been made converts to a new
faith, and that they now worship at a new
political shrine—and I have no word to ut-
ter in denial of their right thus to erect
new idols. In this there may be sincerity
and manly honesty. But I do object to their |
