Fidelity: The Fighting Swearers

Originally published March-April 2025 · pp. 32–35

& B

The Dismantling of Slavery in Maryland This & That efore the American Revolution slavery was practiced in all 13 British colonies which were to form the United States. In the last years of the 18th century and the first part of the 19th, seven Northern states abolished slavery.1 The institution was not a significant part of these states’ economies, of course, and there were very few slaves to be freed or (in some cases) to be sold in jurisdictions where slavery remained legal. When seven slave states seceded between December 1860 and February 1861, they were outnumbered by the eight slave states still in the Union. Four of these eight seceded after Fort Sumter. Among the four slave states that remained was the border state of Maryland. This column will examine the events between 1861 and 1864 that led to the abolition of slavery in the Old Line State. According to the 1860 census, Maryland’s total population was 687,049, of which one-quarter was black. The number of slaves had fallen steadily between 1800 and 1860, as the number of free blacks grew. In the final census before the war, the slave population was only slightly greater than the population of free blacks, 87,189 to 83,942, with over one-third of the free blacks living in Baltimore. Slavery was obviously declining in importance, largely due to the decline of tobacco farming and the growing industrialization of the state’s economy. A smaller (and less profitable) tobacco sector meant that slave labor was less valuable. Hence the cost of manumission was lower, as farmers shifted to other crops for which slave labor was less important. There were measures to curtail the rights of the growing population of free blacks (e.g., vagrancy laws, limits on access to the courts, and restrictions on the return of free blacks who had left the state). In addition, societies were formed to encourage free blacks to settle in Liberia. In 1837 a constitutional amendment was adopted that prohibited the legislature from abolishing slavery except by a unanimous vote. While the voice for abolition was weak, it was growing, and the pro-slavery lobby created this insurmountable obstacle to forestall future trouble. A new

By Gould Hagler constitution, adopted in 1851, went further, and prohibited the legislature from abolishing slavery. Nevertheless, the direction was clear. The state was moving away from slavery, if at a slow pace. The Civil War increased the pace dramatically. While abolition was not initially a war aim of the Lincoln administration, and while the institution of slavery was not abolished until the passage of the 13th Amendment, huge numbers of slaves, by various means, escaped bondage during the war. Many sought and received refuge by crossing into Union lines, with many men working as laborers for the military. Large numbers of escapees were housed in contraband camps, where they worked and were often schooled. The recruitment of black soldiers, controversial at first, was accepted as the war lengthened. Tens of thousands were accepted into the army. These dynamics were at work in every part of the Confederacy penetrated by Federal forces. The situation in the loyal slave state of Maryland followed the same pattern but on a more pronounced scale. The United States army was everywhere. Finding refuge at a military facility was not especially difficult. The District of Columbia, where slavery was abolished in April 1862, was a short journey from much of the state. An escaped slave could get lost in the crowd of the tens of thousands of free blacks. The Fugitive Slave Act was a dead letter. The army needed men, and recruiters seldom made serious inquiry about the status of a black volunteer, especially if the volunteer’s master was, or was suspected of being, disloyal to the Union. In those cases where inquiry was made, loyal slave owners were compensated if they granted permission. The situation was fluid, of course, but the trend was unmistakable and clearly irreversible. Sometimes owners found it expedient simply to look the other way as their slaves walked away. The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to Maryland, of course, but at that stage of the war that fact hardly mattered: many thousands of Maryland slaves were already, and by then certainly, “thenceforward, and forever free.”2

Abraham Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation. (Library of Congress)

The Cecil Whig, Feb. 6, 1864, p. 2.

As for the institution itself, it was legal, being recognized and protected by the laws and constitutions of the United States and the state of Maryland. By 1863 the Unionists in Maryland had split into two factions. The Unconditional Unionists, aligned with the Lincoln administration, advocated the immediate end to slavery. The other faction, the Conditional Unionists, were strongest in the southern part of the state and the Eastern Shore, areas where slavery was more entrenched. They were unionists, but they objected to the Emancipation Proclamation and other actions by Lincoln which they believed to be unconstitutional. The Unconditionals grew in strength and in the election held on Nov. 4, 1863, gained a majority in the state’s General Assembly.3 Their platform called for a new constitution to abolish slavery in Maryland. The legislature convened in January 1864 and in February passed a convention bill, putting the question to the voters in an election to be held on April 6. On that date the people would vote whether to hold the convention and, at the same time, select the men to serve as delegates should the vote for the convention be positive. Between February and April, newspapers supportive of the Unconditional Union Party’s platform devoted much ink in their advocacy. Typical are the editorials in The Cecil Whig in Elkton. Immediately after the legislature acted, the paper urged Marylanders to vote “yes” for the convention and to select delegates who would support immediate and unconditional emancipation. The Whig ridiculed the arguments made by the “slavery propagandists” who favored a gradual transition and compensation to the slave owners. “Emancipation, final, unconditional” was the theme in the runup to the vote.4 The Aegis & Intelligencer in Bel Air, on the other hand, argued that immediate emancipation would be “utterly ruinous.”5 The Saint Mary’s Gazette in Leonard Town advocated a “no” vote on the convention question but anticipated passage and ultimately the creation of “an Abolitionist Constitution.” The paper recognized that the end of slavery was near, as “in its waning and crippled condition, it may be regarded as hardly worth defending. In this section, the Government has already rendered it profitless and burdensome, and the tenure of this species of property is far too insecure…to justify the waging of a contest over it.”6 The vote was favorable to the convention, 31,593 for and 19,524 against. Unconditional Unionists formed a large majority of the delegates selected, numbering 61 of the 96 chosen.7 The delegates convened on April 6 and met for the remainder of the spring and for most of the summer. With their strong majority, the Unconditional Unionists had the strength to prevail on nearly every issue.8 With regard to the slavery question, the 35 Democrats did not go down without a fight. They maneuvered skillfully and forced votes on numerous provisions. One would have made emancipation contingent on compensation paid by the national government. Another would have required the state to support the newly freed slaves. A third proposal would have prohibited blacks from other states from moving into Maryland. A fourth would have provided that slaves would gain full freedom only after a period of apprenticeship under their former owners. All such proposals failed. When the convention ended its work on September 6, the provision on slavery stated that “hereafter in this state, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except in punishment for crime…and all persons held to service or labor as slaves, are hereby declared free.” Emancipation would not entail political rights: blacks were not granted the right to vote.9 After the Unconditional Unionists’ success in all the steps leading to this proposed Constitution, it would perhaps seem that ratification by the people in October would be a sure thing, but this was not the case. Three features of the proposed Constitution were extremely controversial. First, the document not only did not contain provisions for compensation but also prohibited compensation in the future. Even if a future legislature favored some form of compensation, it would lack the authority to appropriate funds for that purpose.

A second feature related to the soldier vote, authorizing the General Assembly to establish procedures for soldiers to vote while serving in the field. This was a novelty, as the 1851 Constitution contained no such provision. The legislature therefore did not yet have such authority and had taken no such action. Nevertheless, the not-yet-ratified Constitution provided for soldiers to cast votes in the field on the question of ratification. In other words, the proposed Constitution contained a provision that was put into effect before the Constitution was even approved. Another provision also put the cart before the horse. The proposed instrument created a test oath for all future elections, yet it was to be a requirement for voting in the election on the ratification of the Constitution. These three provisions provoked heated opposition and were effectively used by the Democrats in their campaign against ratification. The October vote was a close-run affair. In fact, exclusive of the soldier vote, the nays outnumbered the yeas, 29,536 to 27,541. The soldiers in the field voted heavily for ratification. Their support, the validity of which was highly dubious, put the yeas over the top by a margin of 375 votes. Opponents went to court in an effort to overturn the results of the election because of the soldier vote, the test oath and allegations of fraud. The appeals failed and the Constitution was ratified and took effect on Nov. 1, 1864. Slavery was abolished in Maryland. Missouri followed Maryland’s lead and abolished slavery in that state on Jan. 11, 1865. In Delaware and Kentucky, and in the 11 states which had formed the Confederacy, the institution remained on the books until Dec. 18, 1865, when the 13th Amendment took effect and abolished slavery in the entire re-united United States. Sources: “The Maryland Constitution of 1864” by William Starr

Myers, in Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, Series XIX, Nos. 8-9, 1901, available from Google books, is the source for the information on the Constitutional Convention and the ratification vote. Robert J. Brugger’s Maryland: A Middle Temperament 1634-1980, John Hopkins University Press, 1988, contains several chapters which cover the history of slavery in Maryland and its abolition in the state. The newspapers cited are found at https://chroniclingamerica. loc.gov.

Aegis & Intelligencer, April 1, 1864. St. Mary’s Gazette, March 24, 1864 Myers, p. 34. It should be noted that the convention was tasked with overhauling the entire state constitution. The slavery question was the most controversial issue, but not the only one of many the delegates had to settle. Myers, p. 52 and p. 63.

Gould Hagler is a retired lobbyist living in Dunwoody, Ga. He has been a regular contributor to CWN since 2016. He can be reached at [email protected].

Since 1978, we have collected or handled over 80 of the “Big Six” Confederate Notes to include nearly 10% of all known surviving Montgomery Notes.

Endnotes: 1.

The states abolishing slavery were Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey. Vermont, not one of the original states and for a brief time an independent republic, abolished slavery in 1777. The verbiage in the Emancipation Proclamation. Gov. Augustus Bradford and others objected strenuously to the military’s interference in the election, but to no avail. According to William Myers, Maj. Gen. Robert Schenck, commander of the Middle Department, “openly advocated the election of the Unconditional Union ticket” and “practically took military control of the ballot-box.” Myers stated further that the turnout was suppressed by “fear of the military at the polls, or the intimidation practiced by it (of which there is absolute proof).” Myers, pp. 19ff. The Cecil Whig, Feb. 6, 1864, page 2.