his Master, and say, I and my fathers have
held him in bondage for more than four hun-
dred years. Now, I think, as a rule and
principle in common law, four hundred years
would establish anything,
Now, suppose that was true; what was the
direct act of Almighty God there? He choose
to send an abolitionist after them, to bring
them up out of the country. How did he do
it? Was there an act of emancipation, or
an act of compensation, by either the general
or the provincial government of Egypt? I
never heard of such a thing in my life. But
the Almighty, the abolitionist in that case,
not only determined that the Egyptians should
give up their slaves, themselves, their wives
and their little ones, without giving Pharoah
and the rest of the Egyptians anything for
them, but the Lord determined as an act of
justice to the Hebrews that they should not
go up out of that land empty-handed. What
did he say to them? He said—Yon have
been building up stores and treasures, and all.
this and that for this people, and they have
not paid you except in harshness and oppres-
sion; therefore, go to these slaveholding
Egyptians and borrow of them jewels for your-
selves and your wives; get their gold and sil-
ver, if you can; then be ready. Kill the
Paschal lamb just at twelve o'clock, and I
will be ready for you. And I believe there
were as many slaves in Egypt at that time as
there are in the whole of the United States.
In that company of fugitives that went out of
Egypt there were 600,000 men, besides an in-
numerable company of women and children,
Taking the 600,000 men as the basis of cal-
culation, and how many slaves were manu-
mitted by that ordinance of the Lord? Not
less than 3,000,000, of course. And they
did not go out empty-handed. Where was
the principle of justice in that? Why did
the Supreme Lord of the Universe say to
them—Go to the Egyptians and borrow of
them gold and silver, and jewels? Because He
know that for more than four hundred years
they had been working for hard task-masters,
and the Lord determined that they should not
go up out of Egypt without some compensa-
tion. The good Lord was on the right side
of the question of emancipation; he was for
compensating the slaves instead of the owners.
I say that is a good precedent. If you do all
that the good Master does and tells you to do,
you will be right. He was an emancipa-
tionist, and He was a compensationist, but
on the side of the slave.
I say, then, reducing this down to a plain,
common-sense matter, yon have no right to
make the artizan, the mechanic, the mer-
chant, or any other class in Maryland, who
never held slaves, turn around and pay the
slaveowner for the slave, when the owner
has had all the benefit of slavery for genera-
tions, and when slavery has rested upon the
workingman as a great curse and incubus all |
this time. It is for this reason that the non-
slaveholding men in this State, who have suf-
fered under this institution, are not the men
to pay the slaveholders for their slaves. And,
therefore, I am opposed to compensation,
I am in favor of emancipation because I
think that rebellion has made it imperative
upon us, I am in favor of emancipation be-
cause I think the circumstances surrounding
us render it imperative upon us. And I am
opposed to compensation by the non-slave-
holders of the State, because I believe that all
the generations of slaveholders who have held
slaves in this State, have held them to the
public prejudice; that in so far as Maryland
was a slaveholding State, that " institution"
as they call it, helped to depress the non-
slaveholding classes of every description, pro-
fessional, mercantile, mechanical, common
day laborers. Every class of men who were
non-slaveholders have felt for generations the
baneful effects of this system. Then why
should they pay for its destruction? What
good rule is there for that? I am opposed to
it.
And I am for acting upon this question of
compensation now. It does not happen to be
the exact fact, as gentlemen say, that this
question was not before the people. I know
that wherever I went, and wherever any of
the gentlemen went whom I have heard talk
upon the subject, the great question before
the people was, compensation or no compensa-
tion. In the county which I have the honor
to represent (Howard,) a vote was cast against
the convention by one majority. And yet
for members of this convention a vote of one
hundred average majority was cast for the so-
called radical candidates. Now what expla-
nation do gentlemen give of that tact? I as-
sure them this is the explanation; numbers
of people who were radical enough and
wanted slavery out of the way, were fright-
ened into voting against a convention, be-
cause they were told by the secessionists of
the county that if there was a convention the
Condition Of compensation by the State would
be inevitably attached to emancipation. And
as they dreaded this, many of them voted
against having a convention; but by their
vote upon members for the convention, they
showed conclusively that if there was to be a
convention they wanted radical men and anti-
state emancipationists to represent them here.
That is the fact.
This question of emancipation has been be-
fore the people. I would like, if it was ex-
actly in place here—I will hand it to my
friends, and they can read it privately if they
please—I would like to read one of many
letters I have received, to show them the sen-
timent daily coming upon this subject to mem-
bers here, in regard to compensation. My
friend from Somerset (Mr. Jones) made the
point that my friend from Frederick (Mr.
Schley) and myself were very anxious that |
