well cultivated farms with their substantial
homesteads and capacious barns; no well-con-
structed bridges, no well-constTucted roads.-
Neglect,the harbinger of decay, has stamped
her impress everywhere.   Slavery, bringing
with it from itsAfrican home its characteristic
accompaniments, seems to have breathed over
its resting places here the same desolating
breath which made Sahara a desert."
  Mr. Carey next gives a detailed statement of
the population of each county in Maryland,
commencing in 1790,and 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 grow-
ing counties, together with the county of Fred-
erick.
  "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 but 811 slaves; Washington,iu a population
of 28,862, has 2,505 slaves; Frederick has 6,370
slaves to a population of 36,703; Baltimore
county, 6,533 slaves inan aggregate population
of 80,256; and Baltimore City includes but
3,212 slaves in its population of 102,513-
  "Now taking these four counties and Balti-
more City out of the account, it will be found
that the aggregate white population of the rest
of the State has diminished since 1790. In
other words the increase of our population,
which is about one hundred and fifty thousand
since the first census, has bEen mainly in those
counties where slavery has been least promi-
nent. In those portions of the State where
slavery prevails most prominently, the white
population, during the last fifty years, has di-
minished."
  He then sums up by the following compari-
son of a portion of the free and slave States,
which exhibits the latter in a painfully humili-
atimng contrast:
  "The contrast presented by the progress of
the free States, whithin fifty years, and by that
of the slaveholding 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



3

States, including Massachusetts and Maine,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
Vermont, New York, New Jersey and Pen nsyl-
vania, had a population of 1,971,455; while the
slaveholding States, Delaware, Maryland, with
the District, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Georgia, contained 1,852,494 in-
habitants. In 1840 the same free States num
bered a population of 6,761,082, and the same
slaveholding States had an 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 do not
grow cotton, sugar, or rice, and where there are
no new lands to present a fresh soil to the plough,
and to invite settlers from a distance, the in-
crease of population in our chief slaveholding
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 similar
to that which rendered desolate three hundred
thousand acres in the campagna of Naples, in
the days of slavery among the Romans-which
made Italy itself almost one wilderness, re-in-
habited by wild boars and other animals, be-
fore 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 effects of slavery are palpaple 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 devel
opment of the agricultural, manufacturing, and
commercial interests of New England and Vir-
ginia, as gathered from the best authorities
within our reach. The first sett ement in Vir-
ginia was commenced in 1607, at Jamestown,
while the first colony planted in New England,
was in 1620, at Plymouth. Both sections may,
therefore, 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. Martin, a Virginia ge-
ographer, states the area of Virginia at 65,624
square miles; Mr. Darby says, 'the area of this
State is usually underrated, as by a careful
measurement by the rhombs, the superfices are
within a fraction of 70,000 square miles."-
(l he area of England and Wales is but 57,812;
Scotland, 25,016; and Ireland, 31,874 square
miles.)