bill was actually introduced by Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, for this purpose, which, after being referred to a committee, was reported on February 25 10 and appropriated ten million dollars to carry the plan into effect. Mr. Crisfield objected, and for this and minor reasons the bill finally passed out of sight and was not brought forward again."

But the question was not thus summarily hushed in Maryland. Emancipation now came to the fore, and remained there till the battle was fought to a finish.

"In this emergency the duty of prompt action became imperative, and even the advocates of gradual emancipation upon the President's recommendation found themselves powerless in the midst of the claims of a higher state necessity, which demanded the prompt abatement of the evil. . . . While compensation was beyond the ability of the state, the duty was not the less incumbent to abate a nuisance which obstructed all the avenues of agricultural, manufacturing and commercial development." "

The more radical wing of the Union party " took up the question, and the fall election of 1863 was fought on this line. The American, in an editorial in the issue of October 7, 1863, said: "As we predicted at the outset, the question has forced its way, has compelled attention, until at last it is the one thing dwelt upon by the first intellects in the state, by all who are candidates for place and position at the hands of the people."

As slavery was recognized and protected by the existing state Constitution (adopted in 1851) which said: "The Legislature shall not pass any law abolishing the relation of master or slave, as it now exists in this state" (Art. III, Sec. 43), a constitutional amendment was necessary to emancipation.

10 House Journal, 37th Congress, 3rd Session, 485.

11

Nicolay and Hay, viii, pp. 456-7.

12 Gov. Swann's inaugural address, Jan. 11, 1865.

18 Not known in Maryland as the Republican party during the

war.

But the Constitution had been formed and passed in an irregular and unsatisfactory manner, and was unpopular with a large number of the people, who demanded z more just and more modern instrument. In fact, there had already been several movements for a Constitutional Convention, notably in 1858, when the Legislature ordered a vote on the question of a new Constitution, and made provision for a convention in case the people were favorable, but there was a majority of over 8000 against it." Later, the Legislature of 1862 made a strong move in this direction. During the special session in the fall of 1861 permission was, on December II, granted the Senate "Committee on Judicial Procedure" to report a bill for taking the sense of the people on calling a Constitutional Convention. The bill was reported during the regular session on January 20, 1862, and passed its third reading on February 14. The House of Delegates amended the Senate bill, and passed it during the night of the last day of the session (March 10), seemingly returning it too late for any further action by the Senate, as we have no subsequent record of the bill."

The radical wing of the Union party in the state had been sharp enough to see the advantage of combining the emancipation sentiment with this dissatisfaction with the State Constitution, and instead of favoring an amendment, declared for a new Constitution in a convention in Baltimore on May 28, 1862, composed of delegates from Union ward-meetings. They carried this move further in the summer of 1863, when they formed a new political party, known as the "Unconditional Union," which embodied the idea among its principles.

16

"Governor's Message, House Documents, 1864. Schmeckebier, "Know Nothing Party in Maryland," 94-6. (J. H. U. Studies, series xvii, 238-40.)

15

Senate Journal (1861-2), 20, 127, 250. House Journal, 474, 894-7, Deb. 1, 581.

16

Nicolay and Hay, viii, 455.

The fall campaign of 1863 was the first general state election since 1861, and hence the first opportunity for radicalism to try its strength since the general Union Party victory when Governor Bradford was elected. A Comptroller of the Treasury, a Commissioner of the Land Office, five members of Congress, a State Legislature and local officials were to be elected. A mass-meeting was held under the auspices of the Union League at the Maryland Institute, Baltimore, on April 20, 1863, which declared for emancipation throughout those parts of the country in rebellion, according to President Lincoln's proclamation of September 22, 1862, and for compensated emancipation in Maryland, according to the President's recommendation of March 6, 1862. Governor Bradford presided at this meeting and also addressed it, as did Hon. Montgomery Blair, ex-Governor Hicks, and other prominent Union men.

The State Central Committee, appointed by the Union State Convention of May 23, 1861, still controlled the party machinery, and was far too conservative to carry out the radical program. At this juncture the Union Leagues of the state stepped in, and in a convention held in Baltimore on June 16, 1863, over which Henry Stockbridge presided, boldly took their stand as "supporting the whole policy of the Government in suppressing the Rebellion." This of course included emancipation. The convention adjourned over till June 23, for which date the State Central Committee had called the regular State Convention of the Union party.

Both conventions met in Baltimore on the same day and in the same building—the "Temperance Temple" on North Gay Street.

The Central Committee Convention, refusing the Union League overtures looking toward a subsequent "fusion" convention, nominated S. S. Maffitt, of Cecil County, for Comptroller, and William L. W. Seabrook, of Frederick County, for Commissioner of the Land Office. The

Union League Convention nominated Henry H. Goldsborough, of Talbot County, for Comptroller, and also nominated Mr. Seabrook for Commissioner of the Land Office.

The division was complete, and these two factions, both loyal to the Union, had now for the present become separate parties, and could only fight out their principles at the polls. The conservatives, hereafter known as "Conditional Union," while protesting their loyalty and desire that the war be carried to a successful close, opposed President Lincoln on account of his "unconstitutional acts 99 17 in his aggressive war measures, and also opposed the radical program of emancipation and the agitation of the slavery question, preferring a policy of compromise and delay. On the other hand, they announced themselves as favoring the submission to the people of the question as to the desirability of calling a constitutional convention. The State Central Committee on September II issued an address to the people of the state embodying these principles. It was signed by Thomas Swann (chairman), John P. Kennedy, Columbus O'Donnell, John B. Seidenstricker, Thomas C. James, George Merryman, Augustus M. Price, William H. Stewart, and John V. L. Findlay.

The radicals, hereafter known as "Unconditional Union" men, came out for an aggressive policy, and forced their candidates to the front as standing on an uncompromising platform advocating a constitutional convention, the extinction of slavery, and complete and absolute support of the National administration. To carry this out it was absolutely necessary that they should secure a majority of the Legislature, so that they could push through a bill for submitting to the people a call for the convention. Their address was issued on September 16, and was signed by William B. Hill, Henry W. Hoffman, Horace Abbott, James E. Dwinelle, William H. Shipley, S. F. Streeter, John A. Needles, Robert Tyson, Milton Whitney and Wil

"Frederick" Examiner," November 4, 1863.

liam H. Baltzell. The Unconditional Union State Central Committee, authorized by the Union League Convention of June 23, organized on September 29 and issued a second address urging upon the people the principles advocated in that of September 15."

18

A vigorous campaign was organized by both parties, and active work immediately began.

The Democratic party was almost dead and practically without organization, and although candidates were nominated in the lower counties, and in the First and Fifth Congressional Districts, it abandoned the field in Baltimore and the northern and western counties to the two Union parties.

The campaign was most actively carried on throughout the state, the candidates and party leaders making numerous speeches, and usually urging that the result of the election would show the sentiment of the state on the dominant subjects of emancipation and a new Constitution. The newspapers supporting the Unconditional Union candidates also adopted the same tone, while those supporting the opposite side were, as a rule, very guarded in their statements, often entirely omitting all controversy, as they evidently feared repression by the military authorities. The most potent organ on the radical side was the Baltimore American, which printed a series of strong antislavery editorials," and on October 12, 1863, stated its position by saying: "The American is not the organ of any party-does not desire to be the organ of any party-and never has had any aspirations for party leadership. . . Our idea is to get rid of Slavery in the state of Maryland at the earliest practicable moment that such a result can be obtained." On November 2 it further urged the people to carry the state for emancipation as the "debt of gratitude which Maryland owes the [National] Government."