5



commencing in 1790, an bringing it on in regu-
lar decades to 1840, exhibiting in the aggregate
the following remarkable results :



  " In nine counties in Maryland the white pop-
ulation has diminished since 1790. These are
the counties: Montgomery, Prince George, St.
Mary's Calvert, Charles Kent, Caroline, Tal-
bot and Queen Anne's. The aggregate white
population of those counties in 1790 was 73,352;
in 1840 it was 54,408. Here is a falling off of
nearly 20,000; if the account were carried to
the present year the falling off would be more
than 20,000.
  "These nine counties include the chief slave-
holding sections of the State. In five of them
taken together, to-wit: Montgomery, Prince
George, St. Mary's, Calvert, .and Charles, the
number of slaves exceeds that of the white pop-
ulation. These are chiefly the tobacco growing
counties, together with the county of Frederick.
  "The counties of Alleghany, Washington,
Frederick, and Baltimore, and Baltimore City,
are the portions of the State in which slavery
has existed but partially. That is to say, Alle-
ghany, with an aggregate population of 15,704,
has but8it slaves; Washington, in a popula-
tion of 28,862, has 2,505 slaves; Frederick has
6,370 slaves to a population of 36,703; Balti-
more county, 6,533 slaves in aggregate popula-
tion of 80,256; and Baltimore City includes but
3,212 in its population of 102,513.
  "Nov taking these four counties and Balti-
more City out of the account, it will be found
that the aggregate white population of the rest
ofthe State has diminishedsince 1790. In other
words the increase of our population, which is
abeut one hundred and fifty thousand since the
first census, has been mainly in those counties
where slavery has been least prominent. In
those portions of the State where slavery pre-
vails most prominently, the white population,
during the last fifty years, has diminished."
  He then sums up, boy the following comparison
of a portion of the free and slave States, which
exhibits the latter in a painfully humiliating con-
trast:
  "The contrast presented by the progress of
the free States, within fifty years, and by that
of the slave-holding States for the same period,
is so familiar that it would be useless to burden
these pages with statistics to illustrate it. It
may be sufficient to state, in respect to the in-
crease of population, that in 1790 the free
States, including Massachusetts and Maine,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
Vermont, New York, New Jersey and Pennsyl-
vania had a population of 1,971,455; while
the slaveholding States, Delaware, Maryland,
with the Dfistrict, Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Georgia, contained 1,852,-
494 inhabitants. Tn 1840 the same free States
numbered a population of 6,761,082, and the
same slave-holding States had entire population
of 3,827,110. The former increased in a ratio
more than double as compared with the latter.



  "In our own State, however, where we donuL
grow cotton, sugar, or rice, and where there arc
no nev lands to present afresh to the plough,
and to invite settlers from a distance, the in-
crease of population in our chief slave-holding
counties has been nothing at all. There has
been a decrease, and a very marked one. How
has this decrease happened but by a process sim-
ilar to that which rendered desolate three hun-
dred thousand acres in the campaigneof Naples,
in the days of slavery among the Romans-
which made Italy itself almost one wildernese,
re-inhabitcd by wild boars and other animals,
before a single barbarian had crossed the Alps!
  "Let us not conceal the truth from ourselves.
Slavery in Maryland is no longer compatible
with progress; it is a dead weight and worse; it
has become a wasting disease, weakening the
vital powers-a leprous distilment into the life-
blood of the commonwealth."



  This, then, fellow-citizens, is the result of the
continued existence of slavery in one of the
older States. We shall presently see that the
deleterious effeets of slavevy are palpable in
Kentucky as well as in Maryland.
  We will now turn to Virginia, " Old Vir-
ginia," the State that we proudly claim as our
mother, and let us see if the picture of slavery
has there a brighter side. And first we give a
comparative view of the progress and develop-
ment of the agricultural, manufacturing, and
commercial interests of New England and Vir-
ginia, as gathered from the best authorities wvith-
in our reach. Both seclions may be considered
as nearly of the same age in point of settlement,
both were settled by Englishmen, and there is a
striking similarity in extent of territory.
  Mr. Howison, in his late history of Virginia,
thus contrasts the natural advantages of Massa-
chusetts and Virginia, and what is here said of
Massachusetts will apply equally to all New
England:
  "Massachusetts was first settled in 1620-
Virginia in 1607-Massachusetts in winter has a
cold, harsh atmosphere-Virginia has at all
times a temperate and pleasant climate-Mas-
sachusetts has a hard, sterile soil, little grateful
for attention-Virginia has a soil generous even
to prodigality, and repaying twenty-fold the la-
bor of the husbandman; Massachusetts is watered
by small streams, and has but oneriver that may
claim the first dignity-Virginia has six of the
finest rivers, whose waters reach the Atlantic.
.         Massachusetts has some iron
and granite, but beyond these, ber minerals are
as nothing-Virginia has iron, lead, copper,
gold, salt, and coal in quantity, which no one
has yet ventured to estimate--Massachusetts has
indeed splendid harbors, and everything essen.
tial to the expansion of shipping-but Virginia
has an inland sea and habomthatmightbenade