Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

THE MARYLAND CONSTITUTION OF 1864

I.

It is a well-known fact that the two powerful and opposing forces of "freedom" and "slavery" battled with each other for years in the economic and political life of our country, till they ended in the Civil War of 1861-5. In fact, around these forces centred all the history of the United States up to that time, for they were born of our Constitution, were nursed into self-assertive strength under its provisions, and grew as the nation expanded, step by step, year by year, from one administration to another, till finally they overthrew all other ties of political fealty, religious association, and patriotic allegiance, and asserted themselves in the great question of the hour. This question was: Shall the nation be free in its domestic relations as in its government, or shall it countenance and protect negro slavery?

Although veiled under the immediate doctrine of "State's Rights," this fundamental contention soon pushed its way to the fore, and in a terrible struggle of brother against brother, was settled forever on the basis of negro emancipation and the integrity of the Union.

The state of Maryland, situated midway between the North and the South, the two great sections of the country that championed the respective sides of the question, united within her borders both the slave system, dominant in the southern counties, as well as the practically free labor of the northern counties and the mountain districts. To these must be added the city of Baltimore, a seething cauldron of divided political sentiment, and which was often opposed by the remainder of the Commonwealth in matters of state polity. Hence Maryland naturally became the scene of bitter strife, consequent upon and contempora

neous with the larger struggle that was rending our nation to its very foundations.

Proximity to the city of Washington caused a very close surveillance of the state on the part of the Federal authorities, leading at times to direct interference in state and local affairs by them, as the loyalty of Maryland was in many ways very necessary to the safety of the National Government. One can well realize this by pausing to think of the consequences to the Union of having its capital entirely within the bounds of a hostile territory-a thing practically impossible, unless unbroken military success is presupposed, and even then a matter of great difficulty.

On the part of Maryland, the very fact of being a slave state naturally bound her more closely to the South, although at the beginning of the secession agitation during the latter part of Buchanan's administration probably the larger part of the people were in favor of standing by the Union. On the other hand, a majority were strongly opposed to coercing the South, and after the outbreak of hostilities, this opposition to the war ended in quite a change of sentiment in many cases, so that it is doubtful if the state would have finally remained in the Union, had it not been for the firm restraining hand of the Federal military authorities. After all, it is practically impossible to reach absolute certainty in this matter, and it will always remain a mooted point, and largely a subject for conjecture.

The half-hearted Union men, if we may call them such, as well as those heartily sympathizing with the South, consistently fought all the measures necessary for carrying the war to a successful termination, such as drafting, negro emancipation and enlistments, martial law, and military supervision of elections and other distinctly state functions. On November 6, 1861, the Union party succeeded in

The Southern sympathizers claimed this in 1864. See Debates ii, 825 (references merely to "Debates and "Proceedings" refer to those of the "State Convention of 1864 ").

electing Augustus W. Bradford governor by over 31,000 majority, 15,000 more votes than the highest candidate at the presidential election of the preceding year. A large majority of the Legislature also was loyal.

By this election Maryland was definitely lost to the cause of secession, and hereafter the main struggle was over the support of the National Government in the war measures mentioned above. The most important of these, which dealt with the original cause of the differences between the North and the South, was slavery, and around the question of emancipation soon centred the political activity of the next three years. President Lincoln precipitated the struggle in the spring of 1862, when he declared his policy of compensated emancipation, especially for the border states that had remained in the Union, and ultimately leading to national abolition of slavery. He first suggested this to some of the leading politicians, and afterwards officially recommended it to Congress, but desired the action of the above states to be voluntary."

Before going further in tracing this movement, we must take a hasty look at the changed condition of slavery in Maryland at this time. While the interest of the people was directed towards the stirring national affairs of political and military moment, a domestic revolution had taken place, not so much as dreamed of a few years before.*

"Scarcely a year had elapsed after the war commenced before the institution of slavery in Maryland became utterly demoralized. The master lost all control over his slave. The relation between master and slave existed only as a feature in the legislation of the past. There was no power to compel obedience or submission on the part of the slave,

Scharf, "Hist. of Md.," iii, 460, states that many illegal votes were cast by Union soldiers stationed in Maryland and other interested persons.

Nicolay and Hay, "Life of Lincoln," viii, 450-1.

"American," Oct. 10, 1863 (Baltimore papers referred to, unless otherwise stated).

and there was no standard which could be appealed to as fixing the value of the slave as property. Maryland was neither a slave nor a free state."

995

Among the many reasons for this state of affairs may be mentioned, first of all, the fact that the radical wing of the Republican party, which now largely favored emancipation, had almost complete control of the National Government, and practical control of the Maryland state government as well, through the presence of the armed military and the provost-marshals. Also, by the state of semianarchy which always accompanies a war waged near by, the social and industrial orders were almost paralyzed in Maryland, and legal remedies were more slow and uncertain. Again, the Federal forces regularly seized slaves, either for enlistment or for bodily labor in connection with the forts or supply departments, and they refused to return them (or even runaway slaves), to their masters. These facts are more than enough to explain the demoralized condition of slavery.

Although useless for all practical purposes, this institution was by no means dead politically, as following events will show. The people of Maryland were born and bred during its life and strongest influence, so that it was hard for many of them to realize the fact of its practical annihilation. In addition, they desired, if slavery must go, to procure some return for their lost property.

In an aggregate population of 687,000 in 1860, there were 83,942 free negroes and 87,189 slaves. The number of slave-owners was estimated at about 16,000, though many of these owned only one or two slaves. A state with so nearly a numerical equality between free negroes and slaves, offered an excellent opportunity for pushing a policy of emancipation, and this opportunity the emancipation advocates were not slow to seize.

* Inaugural address of Governor Swann, Jan. 11, 1865. "Debates," i, 616.

President Lincoln, on March 6, 1862, sent in his message urging a policy of compensated emancipation, and it was approved by resolution of Congress on April 10.' He had an interview on this subject with the delegations from the border states on March 10, 1862, at which two of the Maryland representatives were present-Cornelius L. L. Leary and John W. Crisfield-but they gave him little encouragement. A second interview, four months later, was no more successful, the border states practically declining to entertain his proposals.

"Little could be expected from the Maryland Union representatives at that time in behalf of the President's policy. They had been elected on June 13, 1861, by the party organization which still reflected the conservatism existing before the war, and whose single bond of party affiliation was opposition to secession and disunion-a condition of political sentiment at that time common to all the border slave states and which was formulated by the Crittenden resolution."

The bill for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia which finally, after much delay, passed Congress in the month of April, 1862, served to show the people of Maryland that the cause of emancipation was advancing, and that they must at once prepare to deal with it. The Legislature of 1862, still showing the old suspicious attitude of the slave-owners, who were always on the lookout for anti-slavery measures, had already passed resolutions of loyalty to the Union, but had also protested against any agitation of the subject of emancipation. Hon. Francis Thomas, of Maryland, on January 12, 1863, introduced in Congress a resolution looking toward compensated emancipation in Maryland, and a few days later a

'House Journal, 37th Congress, 2d Session, p. 528. Senate Journal, p. 382.

Nicolay and Hay, "Life of Lincoln" (from which we have largely drawn for this period), viii, 452-4.

'House Journal, 37th Congress, 3rd Session, p. 186.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »