clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
The Maryland Constitution of 1864
Volume 667, Page 38   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

40               The Maryland Constitution of 1864.            [386

a number of the minority members. Edward W. Belt, also
of Prince George's, was an exceedingly strong man, in
many ways one of the most advanced of his party, as his
course on the "usury" question will show.10 A third man
from the same county, Samuel H. Berry, and also Oliver
Miller, of Anne Arundel; James U. Dennis, of Somerset;
James T. Briscoe, of Calvert, and John F. Dent, of St.
Mary's, were all of great force and influence. With them
should be mentioned Ezekiel F. Chambers, of Kent, who
always acted with the minority, and at last definitely iden-
tified himself with them, although at first claiming to rep-
resent no party. Though elderly and usually of too great
conservatism, yet his prominence is apparent when we
observe that he had been sixteen years in the State Legis-
lature and in Congress; had been a member of the Conven-
tion of 1850-1, and was about to be the Democratic candi-
date for Governor in the fall of 1864.

The minority, in addition to opposition in debate and by
vote, showed great ingenuity in falling back from one posi-
tion to another, as soon as the former was made untenable.
A good instance of this will be seen in the emancipation
question, where a continuation of slavery, state and na-
tional compensation, and negro apprenticeship were advo-
cated in turn. Both parties were very ready to call for the
yeas and nays on leading questions, especially the minority,
who desired to put their opponents individually on record
as favoring the extreme measures which were passed.
They also used tactics of delay in some instances, but with
little success, as the majority could usually outvote them.
Hence they did not carry this sort of opposition very far,
knowing the final futility of any such attempts. At times
vigorous complaint was made against the use of the pre-
vious question by the majority in order to shut off debate.
This was largely during the latter half of the session of the
Convention, when the work was being pushed with great
activity.

10 See pages 82-83.

 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
The Maryland Constitution of 1864
Volume 667, Page 38   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 17, 2024
Maryland State Archives