From the above it will be seen that the
aggregate value of the slave property of
this State, in 1859-60, was thirty-five mil-
lions three hundred and thirty-one thousand
one hundred and eleven dollars.
Why ill this period of heavy taxation,
and when men require all the labor it is
possible to secure, do we find the majority
of this Convention thus clamoring to de-
stroy property worth to her citizens forty
millions of dollars ?
I have shown already the terms in which
only a few years ago some of the now
warmest advocates of emancipation spoke
of the project. Emancipation results not
from the free and willing choice of the
people of the State, or even from the natu-
ral instincts and convictions of its friends.
To be an emancipationist is now the high-
road to political fame, rewards, and lucra-
tive contracts. The more radical the plan
and principles announced, the more surely
does their advocate gain favor with the
"powers that be." The action of the Federal
Government has destroyed the value of slave
property, as the gentleman from Talbot
(Mr. Valliant,) says, and hence among
other reasons his willingness to abolish it.
I feel satisfied that if to-morrow the market
value of the negro was restored, and Mary-
land was left to act freely upon this ques-
tion, as she was before military power was
exerted, and the tempting offers oof Federal
patronage were extended, that the maintenance
of the institution would now be as
firmly and unanimously advocated as ever.
What is the real, unvarnished statement
of the cause of emancipation in Maryland ?
Upon the election, Mr. President, of
Abraham Lincoln, the ad ministration and
patronage of the Government passed into
the hands of an anti-slavery party. The
seat of Government—the capital of the
United States—is located on the confines
of Maryland, and it has become a policy
dear too the Administration and the north-
ern people—a policy of paramount im-
portance—to carry out the scheme of eman-
cipation in Maryland. It is a policy of
paramount importance because—
1st. On the hypothesis of a reconstructed
Union, it will be either impossible then to
abolish slavery in the State, or only after
the elapse of time. And if it is done now,
it is important to do it in such a manner
as will carry a moral force with it.
2d. On the hypothesis of the continued
prosecution of the war it will sunder, in the
belief of the Administration, the last tie |
which unites Maryland with the Southern
States.
8d. On the hypothesis of peace upon
terms of treaty stipulation, it will secure
the State to the north, simplify questions of
boundary, and avoid all complications
growing out of an attempt to settle the
limits of the two confederacies, which would
exist in the event that Maryland remains
slaveholding.
I ask again, how can slavery be abolished
in Maryland on a basis just too all interests?
I do not deny the power of the General
Government by the military arm, in the
sense of might, to remove, entice, or force
from the State of Maryland, and so place
beyond the temporary control of their masters,
the slaves now in Maryland. It has
been done already to a great extent. But
that does not destroy the legal status of
slavery, or abolish slavery in the State
de jure. This war cannot last forever.
When peace is restored the rights of the
master would revive, Maryland without a
slave in the State at the end of the war,
although not slaveholding de facto, would
be so de jure. And within a short time,
so soon as the authority of the owner could
be re-instated, by tracing out and reclaim-
ing his slave, the State would be both de
jure and de facto slaveholding as before
the war. The mere taking away of the
slaves does not accomplish the object of the
Administration, It carries no moral force
with it. It is not the success of a policy.
Further, Mr. President, the State of Ma-
ryland is nut in rebellion against the Government
of the United States. She is
therefore entitled to all her rights under
the Constitution of tine United States, It
is conceded in the President's message of
last December, that the General Government
has no right to interfere with the
institution in the States mot in rebellion.
"Such a proposition," he says, speaking of
the resolution pledging compensation by
Congress, in Ins Message of March 6th,
1862, " on the part of the Federal Govern-
ment, sets up no claim of right toy Federal
authority to interfere with slavery within
the State limits, referring as it does the ab-
solute control of the subject in each case to
the State and its people immediately,"
There is no ground for the General Gov-
ernment to found a right to abolish slavery
in Maryland on the plea of the preservation
of the government, or on the plea of mili-
tary necessity, further than a special mili-
tary necessity to take the able-bodied men. |
