Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April - Chapters VI-IX



Page 79 

CHAPTER VI.
SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.--REPORT OF THE BOARD OF POLICE.--
SUPPRESSION OF THE FLAGS.--ON THE 5TH OF MAY, GENERAL BUTLER TAKES 
POSITION SEVEN MILES FROM BALTIMORE.--ON THE 13TH OF MAY, HE ENTERS 
BALTIMORE AND FORTIFIES FEDERAL HILL.--THE GNERAL ASSEMBLY WILL TAKE NO 
STEPS TOWARDS SECESSION.--MANY YOUNG MEN JOIN THE ARMY OF THE CONFEDERACY.

On the 22d of April, Governor Hicks convened the General Assembly of the 
State, to meet in special session at Annapolis on the 26th, to deliberate 
and consider of the condition of the State, and to take such measures as 
in their wisdom they might deem fit to maintain peace and order and 
security within its limits.

On the 24th of April, "in consequence of the extraordinary state of 
affairs," Governor Hicks changed the meeting of the Assembly to Frederick. 
The candidates for the House of Delegates for the city of Baltimore, who 
had been returned as elected to the General Assembly in 1859, had been 
refused their seats, as previously stated, and a new election in the city 
had therefore become necessary to fill the vacancy.

A special election for that purpose was accordingly held in the city on 
the 24th instant. Only a States Rights ticket was presented, for which 
nine thousand two hundred and forty-four votes were cast. The candidates 
elected were: John C. Brune, Ross Winans, Henry M. Warfield, J. Hanson 
Thomas, T. Parkin Scott, H. M. Morfit, S. Teackle Wallis,

Page 80 

Charles H. Pitts, William G. Harrison and Lawrence Sangston, well-known 
and respected citizens, and the majority of them nominated because of 
their known conservatism and declared opposition to violent measures.

This General Assembly, which contained men of unusual weight and force of 
character, will ever remain memorable in Maryland for the courage and 
ability with which it maintained the constitutional rights of the State.

On the 3d of May, the board of police made a report of its proceedings to 
the Legislature of the State, signed by Charles Howard, President. After 
speaking of the disabling of the railroads, it concludes as follows:

"The absolute necessity of the measures thus determined upon by the 
Governor, Mayor and Police Board, is fully illustrated by the fact that 
early on Sunday morning reliable information reached the city of the 
presence of a large body of Pennsylvania troops, amounting to about twenty-
four hundred men, who had reached Ashland, near Cockeysville, by the way 
of the Northern Central Railroad, and was stopped in their progress 
towards Baltimore by the partial destruction of the Ashland bridge. Every 
intelligent citizen at all acquainted with the state of feeling then 
existing, must be satisfied that if these troops had attempted to march 
through the city, an immense loss of life would have ensued in the 
conflict which would necessarily have taken place. The bitter feelings 
already engendered would have been intensely increased by such a conflict; 
all attempts at conciliation would have been vain, and terrible 
destruction would have been the consequence, if, as is certain, other 
bodies of troops had insisted on forcing their way through the city.

"The tone of the whole Northern press and the mass of the population was 
violent in the extreme. Incursions upon our city were daily threatened, 
not only by troops in the service of the Federal Government, but by the 
vilest and most reckless desperadoes, acting independently, and, as they 
threatened, in despite of the Government, backed by well-known influential 
citizens, and sworn to the commission of all kinds of excesses. In short, 
every possible effort was made to alarm this community. In this condition 
of things the Board felt it to be their solemn duty to continue the 
organization which had already been commenced, for the purpose of assuring 
the people of

Page 81 

Baltimore that no effort would be spared to protect all within its 
borders, to the extent of their ability. All the means employed were 
devoted to this end, and with no view of producing a collision with the 
General Government, which the Board were particularly anxious to avoid, 
and an arrangement was happily effected by the Mayor with the General 
Government that no troops should be passed through the city. As an 
evidence of the determination of the Board to prevent such collision, a 
sufficient guard was sent in the neighborhood of Fort McHenry several 
nights to arrest all parties who might be engaged in a threatened attack 
upon it, and a steam-tug was employed, properly manned, to prevent any 
hostile demonstration upon the receiving-ship Alleghany, lying at anchor 
in the harbor, of all which the United States officers in command were 
duly notified.

"Property of various descriptions belonging to the Government and 
individuals was taken possession of by the police force with a view to its 
security. The best care has been taken of it. Every effort has been made 
to discover the rightful owners, and a portion of it has already been 
forwarded to order. Arrangements have been made with the Government agents 
satisfactory to them for the portion belonging to it, and the balance is 
held subject to the order of its owners.

"Amidst all the excitement and confusion which has since prevailed, the 
Board take great pleasure in stating that the good order and peace of the 
city have been preserved to an extraordinary degree. Indeed, to judge from 
the accounts given by the press of other cities of what has been the state 
of things in their own communities, Baltimore, during the whole of the 
past week and up to this date, will compare favorably, as to the 
protection which persons and property have enjoyed, with any other large 
city in the United States."

Much has been said in regard to the suppression of the national flag in 
Baltimore during the disturbances, and it is proper that the facts should 
here be stated.

General Robinson, in his description of the occurrences which took place 
after the 19th of April, says that meetings were held under the flag of 
the State of Maryland, at which the speeches were inflammatory secession 
harangues, and that the national flag disappeared, and no man dared to 
display it. Whether or not this statement exactly represents the

Page 82 

condition of things, it at least approximates it, and on the 26th of 
April, an order was issued by the board of police reciting that the peace 
of the city was likely to be disturbed by the display of various flags, 
and directing that no flag of any description should be raised or carried 
through the streets. On April 29th, the city council passed an ordinance, 
signed by the Mayor, authorizing him, when in his opinion the peace of the 
city required it, to prohibit by proclamation for a limited period, to be 
designated by him, the public display of all flags or banners in the city 
of Baltimore, except on buildings or vessels occupied or employed by the 
Government of the United States. On the same day I, in pursuance of the 
ordinance, issued a proclamation prohibiting the display of flags for 
thirty days, with the exception stated in the ordinance, and on the 10th 
of May, when I was satisfied that all danger was over, I issued a 
proclamation removing the prohibition. The only violation of the order 
which came under my notice during the period of suppression was on the 
part of a military company which had the Maryland flag flying at its 
headquarters, on Lexington street near the City Hall. On my directing this 
flag to be taken down, the request was at once complied with.

General Robinson says that "the first demonstration of returning loyalty 
was on the 28th day of April, when a sailing vessel came down the river 
crowded with men, and covered from stem to stern with national flags. She 
sailed past the fort, cheered and saluted our flag, which was dipped in 
return, after which she returned to the city." He then adds: "The tide had 
turned. Union men a vowed themselves, the stars and stripes were again 
unfurled, and order was restored. Although after this time arrests were 
made of persons conspicuous for disloyalty, the return to reason was

Page 83 

almost as sudden as the outbreak of rebellion. The railroads were 
repaired, trains ran regularly, and troops poured into Washington without 
hindrance or opposition of any sort. Thousands of men volunteered for the 
Union Army. Four regiments of Maryland troops afterwards served with me, 
and constituted the Third Brigade of my division. They fought gallantly 
the battles of the Union, and no braver soldiers ever marched under the 
flag."

The tide indeed soon turned, but not quite so rapidly as this statement 
seems to indicate. On the 5th of May, General Butler, with two regiments 
and a battery of artillery, came from Washington and took possession of 
the Relay House on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad at the junction of the 
Washington branch, about seven miles from Baltimore, and fortified the 
position. One of his first proceedings was highly characteristic. He 
issued a special order declaring that he had found well-authenticated 
evidence that one of his soldiers had "been poisoned by means of 
strychnine administered in the food brought into the camp," and he warned 
the people of Maryland that he could "put an agent, with a word, into 
every household armed with this terrible weapon." This statement sent a 
thrill of horror through the North, and the accompanying threat of course 
excited the indignation and disgust of our people. The case was carefully 
examined by the city physician, and it turned out that the man had an 
ordinary attack of cholera morbus, the consequence of imprudent diet and 
camp life, but the General never thought proper to correct the slander.

On the evening of the 11th of May, General Butler being then at Annapolis, 
I received a note from Edward G. Parker, his aide-de-camp, stating that he 
had received intimations from many sources that an attack by the Baltimore 
roughs

Page 84 

was intended that night; that these rumors had been confirmed by a 
gentleman from Baltimore, who gave his name and residence; that the attack 
would be made by more than a thousand men, every one sworn to kill a man; 
that they were coming in wagons, on horses and on foot, and that a 
considerable force from the west, probably the Point of Rocks in Maryland, 
was also expected, and I was requested to guard every avenue from the 
city, so as to prevent the Baltimore rioters from leaving town.

Out of respect to the source from which the application came, I 
immediately sent for the marshal of police, and requested him to throw out 
bodies of his men so as to guard every avenue leading to the Relay House. 
No enemy, however, appeared. The threatened attack proved to be merely a 
groundless alarm, as I knew from the beginning it was.

On the night of the 13th of May, when the city was as peaceful as it is to-
day, General Butler, in the midst of a thunderstorm of unusual violence, 
entered Baltimore and took possession of Federal Hill, which overlooks the 
harbor and commands the city, and which he immediately proceeded to 
fortify. There was nobody to oppose him, and nobody thought of doing so; 
but, for this exploit, which he regarded as the capture of Baltimore, he 
was made a Major-General. He immediately issued a proclamation, as if he 
were in a conquered city subject to military law.

Meantime, on the 26th of April, the General Assembly of the State had met 
at Frederick. "As soon as the General Assembly met" (Scharf's History of 
Maryland, Vol. III, p. 444), "the Hon. James M. Mason, formerly United 
States Senator from Virginia, waited on it as commissioner from that 
State, authorized to negotiate a treaty of alliance offensive and 
defensive with Maryland on her behalf." This proposition

Page 85 

met with no acceptance. On the 27th, the Senate, by a unanimous vote, 
issued an address for the purpose of allaying the apprehensions of the 
people, declaring that it had no constitutional authority to take any 
action leading to secession, and on the next day the House of Delegates, 
by a vote of 53 to 12, made a similar declaration. Early in May, the 
General Assembly, by a vote in the House of 43 to 12, and in the Senate of 
11 to 3, passed a series of resolutions proclaiming its position in the 
existing crisis.

The resolutions protested against the war as unjust and unconstitutional, 
and announced a determination to take no part in its prosecution. They 
expressed a desire for the immediate recognition of the Confederate 
States; and while they protested against the military occupation of the 
State, and the arbitrary restrictions and illegalities with which it was 
attended, they called on all good citizens to abstain from violent and 
unlawful interference with the troops, and patiently and peacefully to 
leave to time and reason the ultimate and certain re-establishment and 
vindication of the right; and they declared it to be at that time 
inexpedient to call a Sovereign Convention of the State, or to take any 
measures for the immediate organization or arming of the militia.

After it became plain that no movement would be made towards secession, a 
large number of young men, including not a few of the flower of the State, 
and representing largely the more wealthy and prominent families, escaped 
across the border and entered the ranks of the Confederacy. The number has 
been estimated at as many as twenty thousand, but this, perhaps, is too 
large a figure, and there are no means of ascertaining the truth. The 
muster-rolls have perished with the Confederacy. The great body of those

Page 86 

who sympathized with the South had no disposition to take arms against the 
Union so long as Maryland remained a member of it. This was subsequently 
proved by their failure to enlist in the Southern armies on the different 
occasions in 1862, 1863 and 1864 when they crossed the Potomac and 
transferred the seat of war to Maryland and Pennsylvania, under the 
command twice of General Lee and once of General Early.

The first of these campaigns ended in the bloody battle of Antietam. The 
Maryland men, as a tribute to their good conduct, were placed at the head 
of the army, and crossed the river with enthusiasm, the band playing and 
the soldiers singing "My Maryland." Great was their disappointment that 
the recruits did not even suffice to fill the gaps in their shattered 
ranks.



Page 87

CHAPTER VII.
CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY AND THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.--A UNION CONVENTION.--
CONSEQUENCE OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT.--INCIDENTS OF THE WAR.--THE 
WOMEN IN THE WAR.

The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, by order of the President, 
without the sanction of an Act of Congress, which had not then been given, 
was one of the memorable events of the war.

On the 4th of May, 1861, Judge Giles, of the United States District Court 
of Maryland, issued a writ of habeas corpus to Major Morris, then in 
command of Fort McHenry, to discharge a soldier who was under age. Major 
Morris refused to obey the writ.

On the 14th of May the General Assembly adjourned, and Mr. Ross Winans, of 
Baltimore, a member of the House of Delegates, while returning to his 
home, was arrested by General Butler on a charge of high treason. He was 
conveyed to Annapolis, and subsequently to Fort McHenry, and was soon 
afterwards released.

A case of the highest importance next followed. On the 25th of May, Mr. 
John Merryman, of Baltimore County, was arrested by order of General Keim, 
of Pennsylvania, and confined in Fort McHenry. The next day (Sunday, May 
26th) his counsel, Messrs. George M. Gill and George H. Williams, 
presented a petition for the writ of habeas corpus to Chief Justice Taney, 
who issued the writ immediately, directed

Page 88 

to General Cadwallader, then in command in Maryland, ordering him to 
produce the body of Merryman in court on the following day (Monday, May 
27th). On that day Colonel Lee, his aide-de-camp, came into court with a 
letter from General Cadwallader, directed to the Chief Justice, stating 
that Mr. Merryman had been arrested on charges of high treason, and that 
he (the General) was authorized by the President of the United States in 
such cases to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for the public safety. 
Judge Taney asked Colonel Lee if he had brought with him the body of John 
Merryman. Colonel Lee replied that he had no instructions except to 
deliver the letter.

Chief Justice.--The commanding officer, then, declines to obey the writ?

Colonel Lee.--After making that communication my duty is ended, and I have 
no further power (rising and retiring).

Chief Justice.--The Court orders an attachment to issue against George 
Cadwallader for disobedience to the high writ of the Court, returnable at 
twelve o'clock to-morrow.

The order was accordingly issued as directed.

A startling issue was thus presented. The venerable Chief Justice had come 
from Washington to Baltimore for the purpose of issuing a writ of habeas 
corpus, and the President had thereupon authorized the commander of the 
fort to hold the prisoner and disregard the writ.

A more important occasion could hardly have occurred. Where did the 
President of the United States acquire such a power? Was it true that a 
citizen held his liberty subject to the arbitrary will of any man? In what 
part of the Constitution could such a power be found? Why had it never 
been discovered before? What precedent existed for such an act?

Judge Taney was greatly venerated in Baltimore, where

Page 89 

he had formerly lived. The case created a profound sensation.

On the next morning the Chief Justice, leaning on the arm of his grandson, 
walked slowly through the crowd which had gathered in front of the court-
house, and the crowd silently and with lifted hats opened the way for him 
to pass.

Roger B. Taney was one of the most self-controlled and courageous of 
judges. He took his seat with his usual quiet dignity. He called the case 
of John Merryman and asked the marshal for his return to the writ of 
attachment. The return stated that he had gone to Fort McHenry for the 
purpose of serving the writ on General Cadwallader; that he had sent in 
his name at the outer gate; that the messenger had returned with the reply 
that there was no answer to send; that he was not permitted to enter the 
gate, and, therefore, could not serve the writ, as he was commanded to do.

The Chief Justice then read from his manuscript as follows:

I ordered the attachment of yesterday because upon the face of the return 
the detention of the prisoner was unlawful upon two grounds:

1st. The President, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, 
cannot suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, nor authorize 
any military officer to do so. 
2d. A military officer has no right to arrest and detain a person not 
subject to the rules and articles of war, for an offense against the laws 
of the United States, except in aid of the judicial authority and subject 
to its control; and if the party is arrested by the military, it is the 
duty of the officer to deliver him over immediately to the civil 
authority, to be dealt with according to law.

I forbore yesterday to state the provisions of the Constitution of the 
United States which make these principles the fundamental law of the 
Union, because an oral statement might be misunderstood in some portions 
of it, and I shall therefore put my opinion in writing, and the it in the 
office of the clerk of this court, in the course of this week.

The Chief Justice then orally remarked:

Page 90 

In relation to the present return, it is proper to say that of course the 
marshal has legally the power to summon the posse comitatus to seize and 
bring into court the party named in the attachment; but it is apparent he 
will be resisted in the discharge of that duty by a force notoriously 
superior to the posse, and, this being the case, such a proceeding can 
result in no good, and is useless. I will not, therefore, require the 
marshal to perform this duty. If, however, General Cadwallader were before 
me, I should impose on him the punishment which it is my province to 
inflict--that of fine and imprisonment. I shall merely say, to-day, that I 
shall reduce to writing the reasons under which I have acted, and which 
have led me to the conclusions expressed in my opinion, and shall direct 
the clerk to forward them with these proceedings to the President, so that 
he may discharge his constitutional duty "to take care that the laws are 
faithfully executed."

It is due to my readers that they should have an opportunity of reading 
this opinion, and it is accordingly inserted in an Appendix.

After the court had adjourned, I went up to the bench and thanked Judge 
Taney for thus upholding, in its integrity, the writ of habeas corpus. He 
replied, "Mr. Brown, I am an old man, a very old man" (he had completed 
his eighty-fourth year), "but perhaps I was preserved for this occasion." 
I replied, "Sir, I thank God that you were."

He then told me that he knew that his own imprisonment had been a matter 
of consultation, but that the danger had passed, and he warned me, from 
information he had received, that my time would come.

The charges against Merryman were discovered to be unfounded and he was 
soon discharged by military authority.

The nation is now tired of war, and rests in the enjoyment of a harmony 
which has not been equalled since the days of James Monroe. When Judge 
Taney rendered this decision the Constitution was only seventy-two years 
old--twelve years younger than himself. It is now less than one hundred 
years

Page 91 

old--a short period in a nation's life--and yet during that period there 
have been serious commotions--two foreign wars and a civil war. In the 
future, as in the past, offenses will come, and hostile parties and 
factions will arise, and the men who wield power will, if they dare, shut 
up in fort or prison, without reach of relief, those whom they regard as 
dangerous enemies. When that period arrives, then will those who wisely 
love their country thank the great Chief Justice, as I did, for his 
unflinching defense of habeas corpus, the supreme writ of right, and the 
corner-stone of personal liberty among all English-speaking people.

In the Life of Benjamin R. Curtis, Vol. I, p. 240, his biographer says, 
speaking of Chief Justice Taney, with reference to the case of Merryman, 
"If he had never done anything else that was high, heroic and important, 
his noble vindication of the writ of habeas corpus and the dignity and 
authority of his office against a rash minister of State, who, in the 
pride of a fancied executive power, came near to the commission of a great 
crime, will command the admiration and gratitude of every lover of 
constitutional liberty so long as our institutions shall endure." The 
crime referred to was the intended imprisonment of the Chief Justice.

Although this crime was not committed, a criminal precedent had been set 
and was ruthlessly followed. "My lord," said Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons, "I 
can touch a bell on my right hand and order the imprisonment of a citizen 
of Ohio; I can touch a bell again and order the imprisonment of a citizen 
of New York; and no power on earth, except that of the President, can 
release them. Can the Queen of England do so much?" When such a power is 
wielded by any man, or set of men, nothing is left to protect the liberty 
of the citizen.

Page 92 

On the 24th of May, a Union Convention, consisting of fourteen counties of 
the State, including the city of Baltimore, and leaving eight 
unrepresented, met in the city. The counties not represented were 
Washington, Montgomery, Prince George, Charles, St. Mary's, Dorchester, 
Somerset, and Worcester. The number of members does not appear to have 
been large, but it included the names of gentlemen well known and highly 
respected. The Convention adopted Resolutions which declared, among other 
things, that the revolution on the part of eleven States was without 
excuse or palliation, and that the redress of actual or supposed wrongs in 
connection with the slavery question formed no part of their views or 
purposes; that the people of this State were unalterably determined to 
defend the Government of the United States, and would support the 
Government in all legal and constitutional measures which might be 
necessary to resist the revolutionists; that the intimations made by the 
majority of the Legislature at its late session--that the people were 
humiliated or subjugated by the action of the Government--were gratuitous 
insults to that people; that the dignity of the State of Maryland, 
involved in a precise, persistent and effective recognition of all her 
rights, privileges and immunities under the Constitution of the United 
States, will be vindicated at all times and under all circumstances by 
those of her sons who are sincere in their fealty to her and the 
Government of the Union of which she is part, and to popular 
constitutional liberty; that while they concurred with the present 
Executive of the United States that the unity and integrity of the 
National Union must be preserved, their view of the nature and true 
principles of the Constitution, of the powers which it confers, and of the 
duties which it enjoins, and the rights which it secures, as it relates to 
and

Page 93 

affects the question of slavery in many of the essential bearings, is 
directly opposed to the views of the Executive; that they are fixed in 
their conviction, amongst others, that a just comprehension of the true 
principles of the Constitution forbid utterly the formation of political 
parties on the foundation of the slavery question, and that the Union men 
will oppose to the utmost of their ability all attempts of the Federal 
Executive to commingle in any manner its peculiar views on the slavery 
question with that of maintaining the just powers of the Government.

These resolutions are important as showing the stand taken by a large 
portion of the Union party of the State in regard to any interference, as 
the result of the war or otherwise, by the General Government with the 
provisions of the Constitution with regard to slavery.

After the writ of habeas corpus had been thus suspended, martial law, as a 
consequence, rapidly became all-powerful, and it continued in force during 
the war. That law is by Judge Black, in his argument before the Supreme 
Court in the case of ex parte Milligan,(1) shown to be simply the rule of 
irresponsible force. Law becomes helpless before it. Inter arma silent 
leges.

On May 25, 1862, Judge Carmichael, an honored magistrate, while sitting in 
his court in Easton, was, by the provost marshal and his deputies, 
assisted by a body of military sent from Baltimore, beaten, and dragged 
bleeding from the bench, and then imprisoned, because he had on a previous 
occasion delivered a charge to the grand jury directing them to inquire 
into certain illegal acts and to indict the offenders. His imprisonment in 
Forts McHenry, Lafayette, and Delaware, lasted more than six months. On 
December 4, 1862, he was

(1) 4 Wallace Sup. Court R. 2. 

Page 94 

unconditionally released, no trial having been granted him, nor any 
charges made against him. On June 28, 1862, Judge Bartol, of the Court of 
Appeals of Maryland, was arrested and confined in Fort McHenry. He was 
released after a few days, without any charge being preferred against him, 
or any explanation given.

Spies and informers abounded. A rigid supervision was established. 
Disloyalty, so called, of any kind was a punishable offense. Rebel colors, 
the red and white, were prohibited. They were not allowed to appear in 
shop-windows or on children's garments, or anywhere that might offend the 
Union sentiment. If a newspaper promulgated disloyal sentiments, the paper 
was suppressed and the editor imprisoned. If a clergyman was disloyal in 
prayer or sermon, or if he failed to utter a prescribed prayer, he was 
liable to be treated in the same manner, and was sometimes so treated. A 
learned and eloquent Lutheran clergyman came to me for advice because he 
had been summoned before the provost marshal for saying that a nation 
which incurred a heavy debt in the prosecution of war laid violent hands 
on the harvests of the future; but his offense was condoned, because it 
appeared that he had referred to the "Thirty Years' War" and had made no 
direct reference to the debt of the United States, and perhaps for a 
better reason--that he had strong Republican friends among his 
congregation.

If horses and fodder, fences and timber, or houses and land, were taken 
for the use of the Army, the owner was not entitled to compensation unless 
he could prove that he was a loyal man; and the proof was required to be 
furnished through some well-known loyal person, who, of course, was 
usually paid for his services. Very soon no one was allowed to vote unless 
he was a loyal man, and soldiers at the polls assisted in settling the 
question of loyalty.

Page 95 

Nearly all who approved of the war regarded these things as an inevitable 
military necessity; but those who disapproved deeply resented them as 
unwarrantable violations of sacred constitutional rights. The consequence 
was that friendships were dissolved, the ties of blood severed, and an 
invisible but well-understood line divided the people. The bitterness and 
even the common mention of these acts have long since ceased, but the 
tradition survives and still continues to be a factor, silent, but not 
without influence, in the politics of the State.

History repeats itself. There were deeds done on both sides which bring to 
mind the wars of England and Scotland and the border strife between those 
countries. There were flittings to and fro, and adventures and hairbreadth 
escapes innumerable. Soldiers returned to visit their homes at the risk of 
their necks. Contraband of every description, and letters and newspapers, 
found their way across the border. The military lines were long and 
tortuous, and vulnerable points were not hard to find, and trusty carriers 
were ready to go anywhere for the love of adventure or the love of gain.

The women were as deeply interested as the men, and were less apprehensive 
of personal consequences. In different parts of the city, not excepting 
its stateliest square, where stands the marble column from which the 
father of his country looked down, sadly as it were, on a divided people, 
there might have been found, by the initiated, groups of women who with 
swift and skillful fingers, were fashioning and making garments strangely 
various in shape and kind--some for Northern prisons where captives were 
confined, some for destitute homes beyond the Southern border, in which 
only women and children were left, and some for Southern camps where 
ragged soldiers were waiting

Page 96 

to be clad. The work was carried on not without its risks; but little 
cared the workers for that. Perhaps the sensation of danger itself, and a 
spirit of resistance to an authority which they refused to recognize, gave 
zest to their toil; nor did they always think it necessary to inform the 
good man of the house in which they were assembled either of their 
presence or of what was going on beneath his roof.

The women who stood by the cause of the Union were not compelled to hide 
their charitable deeds from the light of day. No need for them to feed and 
clothe the soldiers of the Union, whose wants were amply supplied by a 
bountiful Government; but with untiring zeal they visited the military 
hospitals on missions of mercy, and when the bloody fields of Antietam and 
Gettysburg were fought, both they and their Southern sisters hastened, 
though not with a common purpose, to the aid of the wounded and dying, the 
victims of civil strife and children of a common country.



Page 97

CHAPTER VIII.
GENERAL BANKS IN COMMAND.--MARSHAL KANE ARRESTED.--POLICE COMMISSIONERS 
SUPERSEDED.--RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.--POLICE 
COMMISSIONERS ARRESTED.--MEMORIAL ADDRESSED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 
TO CONGRESS.--GENERAL DIX IN COMMAND.--ARREST OF MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL 
ASSEMBLY, THE MAYOR AND OTHERS.--RELEASE OF PRISONERS.--COLONEL DIMICK.

On the 10th of June, 1861, Major-General Nathaniel P. Banks, of 
Massachusetts, was appointed in the place of General Cadwallader to the 
command of the Department of Annapolis, with headquarters at Baltimore. On 
the 27th of June, General Banks arrested Marshal Kane and confined him in 
Fort McHenry. He then issued a proclamation announcing that he had 
superseded Marshal Kane and the commissioners of police, and that he had 
appointed Colonel John R. Kenly, of the First Regiment of Maryland 
Volunteers, provost marshal, with the aid and assistance of the 
subordinate officers of the police department.

The police commissioners, including the mayor, offered no resistance, but 
adopted and published a resolution declaring that, in the opinion of the 
board, the forcible suspension of their functions suspended at the same 
time the active operation of the police law and put the officers and men 
off duty for the present, leaving them subject, however, to the rules and 
regulations of the service as to their personal conduct and deportment, 
and to the orders which the board might see

Page 98 

fit thereafter to issue, when the present illegal suspension of their 
functions should be removed.

The Legislature of Maryland, at its adjourned session on the 22d of June, 
passed a series of resolutions declaring that the unconstitutional and 
arbitrary proceedings of the Federal Executive had not been confined to 
the violation of the personal rights and liberties of the citizens of 
Maryland, but had been so extended that the property of no man was safe, 
the sanctity of no dwelling was respected, and that the sacredness of 
private correspondence no longer existed; that the Senate and House of 
Delegates of Maryland felt it due to her dignity and independence that 
history should not record the overthrow of public freedom for an instant 
within her borders, without recording likewise the indignant expression of 
her resentment and remonstrance, and they accordingly protested against 
the oppressive and tyrannical assertion and exercise of military 
jurisdiction within the limits of Maryland over the persons and property 
of her citizens by the Government of the United States, and solemnly 
declared the same to be subversive of the most sacred guarantees of the 
Constitution, and in flagrant violation of the fundamental and most 
cherished principles of American free government.

On the first of July, the police commissioners were arrested and 
imprisoned by order of General Banks, on the ground, as he alleged in a 
proclamation, that the commissioners had refused to obey his decrees, or 
to recognize his appointees, and that they continued to hold the police 
force for some purpose not known to the Government.

General Banks does not say what authority he had to make decrees, or what 
the decrees were which the commissioners had refused to obey; and as on 
the 27th of June he

Page 99 

had imprisoned the marshal of police, and had put a provost marshal in his 
place, retaining only the subordinate officers of the police department, 
and had appointed instead of the men another body of police, all under the 
control of the provost marshal; and as the commissioners had no right to 
discharge the police force established by a law of the State, and were 
left with no duties in relation to the police which they could perform, it 
is very plain that, whatever motive General Banks may have had for the 
arrest and imprisonment of the commissioners, it is not stated in his 
proclamation.

One of the commissioners, Charles D. Hinks, was soon released in 
consequence of failing health.

On the day of the arrest of the police commissioners the city was occupied 
by troops, who in large detachments, infantry and artillery, took up 
positions in Monument Square, Exchange Place, at Camden-street Station and 
other points, and they mounted guard and bivouacked in the streets for 
more than a week.

On July 18th, the police commissioners presented to Congress a memorial in 
which they protested very vigorously against their unlawful arrest and 
imprisonment.

On the 23d day of July, 1861, the mayor and city council of Baltimore 
addressed a memorial to the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States, in which, after describing the condition of affairs in 
Baltimore, they respectfully, yet most earnestly, demanded, as matter of 
right, that their city might be governed according to the Constitution and 
laws of the United States and of the State of Maryland, that the citizens 
might be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against 
unreasonable searches and seizures; that they should not be deprived of 
life, liberty or property without due process of law; that the military 
should render

Page 100 

obedience to the civil authority; that the municipal laws should be 
respected, the officers released from imprisonment and restored to the 
lawful exercise of their functions, and that the police government 
established by law should be no longer impeded by armed force to the 
injury of peace and order. It is perhaps needless to add that the memorial 
met with no favor.

On the 7th of August, 1861, the Legislature of the State, in a series of 
resolutions, denounced these proceedings in all their parts, pronouncing 
them, so far as they affected individuals, a gross and unconstitutional 
abuse of power which nothing could palliate or excuse, and, in their 
bearing upon the authority and constitutional powers and privileges of the 
State herself, a revolutionary subversion of the Federal compact.

The Legislature then adjourned, to meet on the 17th of September.

On the 24th of July, 1861, General Dix had been placed in command of the 
Department, with his headquarters in Baltimore. On that day he wrote from 
Fort McHenry to the Assistant Adjutant-General for re-enforcement of the 
troops under his command. He said that there ought to be ten thousand men 
at Baltimore and Annapolis, and that he could not venture to respond for 
the quietude of the Department with a smaller number. At Fort McHenry, as 
told by his biographer, he exhibited to some ladies of secession 
proclivities an immense columbiad, and informed them that it was pointed 
to Monument Square, and if there was an uprising that this piece would be 
the first he would fire. But the guns of Fort McHenry were not sufficient. 
He built, on the east of the dry a very strong work, which he called Fort 
Marshall, and he strengthened the earthwork on Federal

Page 101 

Hill, in the southern part, so that the city lay under the guns of three 
powerful forts, with several smaller ones. Not satisfied with this, on the 
15th of September, 1862, General Dix, after he had been transferred to 
another department, wrote to Major-General Halleck, then Commander-in-
Chief, advising that the ground on which the earthwork on Federal Hill had 
been erected should be purchased at a cost of one hundred thousand 
dollars, and that it should be permanently fortified at an additional 
expense of $250,000. He was of opinion that although the great body of the 
people were, as he described them, eminently distinguished for their moral 
virtues, Baltimore had always contained a mass of inflammable material, 
which would ignite on the slightest provocation. He added that "Fort 
Federal Hill completely commanded the city, and is capable, from its 
proximity to the principal business quarters, of assailing any one without 
injury to the others. The hill seems to have been placed there by Nature 
as a site for a permanent citadel, and I beg to suggest whether a neglect 
to appropriate it to its obvious design would not be an unpardonable 
dereliction of duty."

These views were perhaps extreme even for a major-general commanding in 
Baltimore, especially as by this time the disorderly element which infests 
all cities had gone over to the stronger side, and was engaged in the 
pious work of persecuting rebels. General Halleck, even after this solemn 
warning, left Federal Hill to the protection of its earthwork.

The opinion which General Dix had of Baltimore extended, though in a less 
degree, to a large portion of the State, and was shared, in part at least, 
not only by the other military commanders, but by the Government at 
Washington.

On the 11th of September, 1861, Simon Cameron, Secretary

Page 102 

of War, wrote the following letter to Major-General Banks, who was at this 
time in command of a division in Maryland:

"War Department, September 11, 1861.

"General:--The passage of any act of secession by the Legislature of 
Maryland must be prevented. If necessary, all or any part of the members 
must be arrested. Exercise your own judgment as to the time and manner, 
but do the work effectively."

On the 12th of September, Major-General McClellan, Commander-in-Chief of 
the Army of the Potomac, wrote a confidential letter to General Banks 
reciting that "after full consultation with the President, Secretary of 
State, War, etc., it has been decided to effect the operation proposed for 
the 17th." The 17th was the day fixed for the meeting of the General 
Assembly, and the operation to be performed was the arrest of some thirty 
members of that body, and other persons besides. Arrangements had been 
made to have a Government steamer at Annapolis to receive the prisoners 
and convey them to their destination. The plan was to be arranged with 
General Dix and Governor Seward, and the letter closes with leaving this 
exceedingly important affair to the tact and discretion of General Banks, 
and impressing on him the absolute necessity of secrecy and success.

Accordingly, a number of the most prominent members of the Legislature, 
myself, as mayor of Baltimore, and editors of newspapers, and other 
citizens, were arrested at midnight. I was arrested at my country home, 
near the Relay House on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, by four policemen 
and a guard of soldiers. The soldiers were placed in both front and rear 
of the house, while the police rapped violently on the front door. I had 
gone to bed, but was still awake, for I had some apprehension of danger. I 
immediately arose,

Page 103 

and opening my bed-room window, asked the intruders what they wanted. They 
replied that they wanted Mayor Brown. I asked who wanted him, and they 
answered, the Government of the United States. I then inquired for their 
warrant, but they had none. After a short time spent in preparation I took 
leave of my wife and children, and closely guarded, walked down the high 
hill on which the house stands to the foot, where a carriage was waiting 
for me. The soldiers went no farther, but I was driven in charge of the 
police seven miles to Baltimore and through the city to Fort McHenry, 
where to my surprise I found myself a fellow-prisoner in a company of 
friends and well-known citizens. We were imprisoned for one night in Fort 
McHenry, next in Fort Monroe for about two weeks, next in Fort Lafayette 
for about six weeks, and finally in Fort Warren. Henry May, member of 
Congress from Baltimore, was arrested at the same time, but was soon 
released.

Col. Scharf, in his "History of Maryland," Volume III, p. 442, says: "It 
was originally intended that they (the prisoners) should be confined in 
the fort at the Dry Tortugas, but as there was no fit steamer in Hampton 
Roads to make the voyage, the programme was changed."(1)

The apprehension that the Legislature intended to pass an act of 
secession, as intimated by Secretary Cameron, was, in view of the position 
in which the State was placed, and the whole condition of affairs, so 
absurd that it is difficult to believe that he seriously entertained it. 
The blow was no doubt, however, intended to strike with terror the 
opponents of the war, and was one of the effective means resorted to by 
the Government to obtain, as it soon did, entire control of the State.

(1) See also the "Chronicles of Baltimore," p. 617, by the same author.

Page 104 

As the events of the 19th of April had occurred nearly five months 
previously, and I was endeavoring to perform my duties as mayor, in 
obedience to law, without giving offense to either the civil or military 
authorities of the Government, the only apparent reason for my arrest grew 
out of a difficulty in regard to the payment of the police appointed by 
General Banks. In July a law had been passed by Congress appropriating one 
hundred thousand dollars for the purpose of such payment, but it was plain 
that a similar expenditure would not long be tolerated by Congress. In 
this emergency an intimation came to me indirectly from Secretary Seward, 
through a common acquaintance, that I was expected to pay the Government 
police out of the funds appropriated by law for the city police. I replied 
that any such payment would be illegal and was not within my power.

Soon afterwards I received the following letter from General Dix, which I 
insert, together with the correspondence which followed:

"Headquarters Department of Pennsylvania,
"Baltimore, Md., September 3, 1861.

"To Hon. Geo. Wm. Brown, Mayor of the City of Baltimore.

"Sir:--Reasons of state, which I deem imperative, demand that the payment 
of compensation to the members of the old city police, who were, by a 
resolution of the Board of Police Commissioners, dated the 27th of June 
last, declared 'off duty,' and whose places were filled in pursuance of an 
order of Major-General Banks of the same date, should cease. I therefore 
direct, by virtue of the authority vested in me as commanding officer of 
the military forces of the United States in Baltimore and its vicinity, 
that no further payment be made to them.

"Independently of all other considerations, the continued compensation of 
a body of men who have been suspended in their functions by the order of 
the Government, is calculated to bring its authority into disrespect; and 
the extraction from the citizens of Baltimore by taxation, in a time of 
general depression and embarrassment, of a sum amounting to several 
hundred thousand dollars a year for the payment of nominal officials who

Page 105 

render it no service, cannot fail by creating widespread dissatisfaction 
to disturb the quietude of the city, which I am most anxious to preserve.

"I feel assured that the payment would have been voluntarily discontinued 
by yourself, as a violation of the principle on which all compensation is 
bestowed--as a remuneration for an equivalent service actually performed--
had you not considered yourself bound by existing laws to make it.

"This order will relieve you from the embarrassment, and I do not doubt 
that it will be complied with.

"I am, very respectfully,
"Your obedient servant,
"John A. Dix,
"Major-General Commanding"

"Mayor's Office, City Hall, "Baltimore, September 5, 1861.

"Major-General John A. Dix, Baltimore, Md.

"Sir:--I was not in town yesterday, and did not receive until this morning 
your letter of the 3d inst. ordering that no further payment be made to 
the members of the city police.

"The payments have been made heretofore in pursuance of the laws of the 
State, under the advice of the City Counsellor, by the Register, the 
Comptroller and myself.

"Without entering into a discussion of the considerations which you have 
deemed sufficient to justify this proceeding, I feel it to be my duty to 
enter my protest against this interference, by military authority, with 
the exercise of powers lawfully committed by the State of Maryland to the 
officers of the city corporation; but it is nevertheless not the intention 
of the city authorities to offer resistance to the order which you have 
issued, and I shall therefore give public notice to the officers and men 
of the city police that no further payments may be expected by them.

"There is an arrearage of pay of two weeks due to the force, and the men 
have by the law and rules of the board been prevented from engaging in any 
other business or occupation. Most of them have families, who are entirely 
dependent for support on the pay received.

"I do not understand your order as meaning to prohibit the payment of this 
arrearage, and shall therefore proceed to make it, unless prevented by 
your further order.

"I am, very respectfully,
"Your obedient servant,
"Geo. Wm. Brown, "Mayor of Baltimore."

Page 106 

"Headquarters Department Of Pennsylvania, "baltimore, Md., September 9, 
1861.

"Hen. Geo. Wm. Brown, Mayor of the city of Baltimore.

"Sir:--Your letter of the 5th inst. was duly received. I cannot, without 
acquiescing in the violation of a principle, assent to the payment of an 
arrearage to the members of the old city police, as suggested in the 
closing paragraph of your letter.

"It was the intention of my letter to prohibit any payment to them 
subsequently to the day on which it was written.

"You will please, therefore, to consider this as the 'further order' 
referred to by you.

"I am, very respectfully,
"Your obedient servant,
"John A. Dix, "Major-General Commanding."

"Mayor's Office City Hall,
"baltimore, September 11, 1861.

"Major-General John A. Dix, Baltimore.

"Sir:--I did not come to town yesterday until the afternoon, and then 
ascertained that my letters had been sent out to my country residence, 
where, on my return last eyeing, I found yours of the 9th, in reply to 
mine of the 5th instant, awaiting me. It had been left at the mayor's 
office yesterday morning.

"Before leaving the mayor's office about three o'clock P. M. on the 9th 
instant, and not having received any reply from you, I had signed a check 
for the payment of arrears due the police, and the money was on the same 
day drown out of the bank and handed over to the proper officers, and 
nearly the entire amount was by them paid to the police force before the 
receipt of your letter.

"The suggestion in your letter as the 'violation of a principle' requires 
me to add that I recognize in the action of the Government of the United 
States in the matter in question nothing but the assertion of superior 
force.

"Out of regard to the great interests committed to my charge as chief 
magistrate of the city, I have yielded to that force, and do not feel it 
necessary to enter into any discussion of the principles upon which the 
Government sees fit to exercise it.

"Very respectfully,
"Your obedient servant,
"Geo. Wm. Brown, "Mayor."

Page 107 

The reasons which General Dix assigned for prohibiting me from paying the 
arrearages due the police present a curious combination. First, there were 
reasons of State; next, the respect due to the Government; third, his 
concern for the taxpayers of Baltimore; fourth, the danger to the quiet of 
the city which he apprehended might arise from the payment; and, finally, 
there was a principle which he must protect from violation, but what that 
principle was he did not state.

A striking commentary on these reasons was furnished on the 11th of 
December, 1863, by a decision of the Court of Appeals of Maryland in the 
case of the Mayor, etc., of Baltimore vs. Charles Howard and others, 
reported in 20th Maryland Rep., p. 335. The question was whether the 
interference by the Government of the United States with the Board of 
Police and police force established by law in the city of Baltimore was 
without authority of law and did in any manner affect or impair the rights 
or invalidate the acts of the board. The court held that, though the board 
was displaced by a force to which they yielded and could not resist, their 
power and rights under their organization were still preserved, and that 
they were amenable for any dereliction of official duty, except in so far 
as they were excused by uncontrollable events. And the court decided that 
Mr. Hinks, one of the police commissioners, whose case was alone before 
the court, was entitled to his salary, which had accrued after the board 
was so displaced.

Subsequently, after the close of the war, the Legislature of the State 
passed an act for the payment of all arrearages due to the men of the 
police subsequent to their displacement by the Government of the United 
States and until their discharge by the Government of the State.

Page 108 

It will be perceived that General Dix delayed replying to my letter of the 
5th of September until the 9th; that his reply was not left at the mayor's 
office until the tenth, and that in the meantime, on the afternoon of the 
9th, after waiting for his reply for four days, I paid the arrears due the 
police, as I had good reason to suppose he intended I should.

A friend of mine, a lawyer of Baltimore, and a pronounced Union man, has, 
since then, informed me that General Dix showed him my letter of the 5th 
before my arrest; that my friend asked him whether he had replied to it, 
and the General replied he had not. My friend answered that he thought a 
reply was due to me. From all this it does not seem uncharitable to 
believe that the purpose of General Dix was to put me in the false 
position of appearing to disobey his order and thus to furnish an excuse 
for my imprisonment. This lasted until the 27th of November, 1862, a short 
time after my term of office had expired, when there was a sudden and 
unexpected release of all the State prisoners in Fort Warren, where we 
were then confined.

On the 26th of November, 1862, Colonel Justin Dimick, commanding at Fort 
Warren, received the following telegraphic order from the Adjutant-
General's Office, Washington: "The Secretary of War directs that you 
release all the Maryland State prisoners, also any other State prisoners 
that may be in your custody, and report to this office."

In pursuance of this order, Colonel Dimick on the following day released 
from Fort Warren the following State prisoners, without imposing any 
condition upon them whatever: Severn Teackle Wallis, Henry M. Warfield, 
William G. Harrison, T. Parkin Scott, ex-members of the Maryland 
Legislature from Baltimore; George William Brown, ex-Mayor of Baltimore; 
Charles Howard and William H.

Page 109 

Gatchell, ex-Police Commissioners; George P. Kane, ex-Marshal of Police; 
Frank Key Howard, one of the editors of the Baltimore Exchange; Thomas W. 
Hall, editor of the Baltimore South; Robert Hull, merchant, of Baltimore; 
Dr. Charles Macgill, of Hagerstown; William H. Winder, of Philadelphia; 
and B. L. Cutter, of Massachusetts.

General Wool, then in command in Baltimore, issued an order declaring that 
thereafter no person should be arrested within the limits of the 
Department except by his order, and in all such cases the charges against 
the accused party were to be sworn to before a justice of the peace.

As it was intimated that these gentlemen had entered into some engagement 
as the condition of their release, Mr. Wallis, while in New York on his 
return home, took occasion to address a letter on the subject to the 
editor of the New York World, in which he said: "No condition whatever was 
sought to be imposed, and none would have been accepted, as the Secretary 
of War well knew. Speaking of my fellow-prisoners from Maryland, I have a 
right to say that they maintained to the last the principle which they 
asserted from the first--namely, that, if charged with crime, they were 
entitled to be charged, held and tried in due form of law and not 
otherwise; and that, in the absence of lawful accusation and process, it 
was their right to be discharged without terms or conditions of any sort, 
and they would submit to none."

Many of our fellow-prisoners were from necessity not able to take this 
stand. There were no charges against them, but there were imperative 
duties which required their presence at home, and when the Government at 
Washington adopted the policy of offering liberty to those who would 
consent to take an oath of allegiance prepared for the occasion, they had 
been compelled to accept it.

Page 110 

Before this, in December, 1861, the Government at Washington, on 
application of friends, had granted me a parole for thirty days, that I 
might attend to some important private business, and for that time I 
stayed with kind relatives, under the terms of the parole, in Boston.

The following correspondence, which then took place, will show the 
position which I maintained:

"Boston, January 4, 1862.

"Marshal Keys, Boston.

"Sir:--I called twice to see you during this week, and in your absence had 
an understanding with your deputy that I was to surrender myself to you 
this morning, on the expiration of my parole, in time to be conveyed to 
Fort Warren, and I have accordingly done so.

"As you have not received any instructions from Washington in regard to 
the course to be pursued with me, I shall consider myself in your custody 
until you have had ample time to write to Washington and obtain a reply.

"I desire it, however, to be expressly understood that no further 
extension of my parole is asked for, or would be accepted at this time.

"It is my right and my wish to return to Baltimore, to resume the 
performance of my official and private duties.

Respectfully,
"Geo. Wm. Brown."

"Department of State,
"Washington, January 6, 1862.

"John S. Keys, Esq., U. S. Marshal, Boston.

"Sir:--Your letter of the 4th inst., relative to George W. Brown, has been 
received.

"In reply, I have to inform you that, if he desires it, you may extend his 
parole to the period of thirty days. If not, you will please recommit him 
to Fort Warren and report to this Department.

"I am, sir, very respectfully,
"Your obedient servant,
"F. W. Seward,
"Acting Secretary of State."

"Boston, January 10, 1862.

"Marshal Keys, Boston.

"Sir:--In my note to you of the 4th inst. I stated that I did not desire

Page 111 

a renewal of my parole, but that it was my right and wish to return to 
Baltimore, to resume the performance of my private and official duties.

"My note was, in substance, as you informed me, forwarded to Hon. W. H. 
Seward, Secretary of State, in a letter from you to him.

"In reply to your communication, F. W. Seward, Acting Secretary of State, 
wrote to you under date of the 6th inst. that 'you may extend the parole 
of George W. Brown if he desires it, but if not, you are directed to 
recommit him to Fort Warren.'

"It was hardly necessary to give me the option of an extension of parole 
which I had previously declined, but the offer renders it proper for me to 
say that the parole was applied for by my friends, to enable me to attend 
to important private business, affecting the interests of others as well 
as myself; that the necessities growing out of this particular matter of 
business no longer exist, and that I cannot consistently with my ideas of 
propriety, by accepting a renewal of the parole, place myself in the 
position of seeming to acquiesce in a prolonged and illegal banishment 
from my home and duties.

Respectfully,
"Geo. Wm. Brown."

On the 11th of January, 1862, I returned to Fort Warren, and on the 14th 
an offer was made to renew and extend my parole to ninety days upon 
condition that I would not pass south of Hudson River. This offer I 
declined. My term of office expired on the 12th of November, 1862, and 
soon afterwards I was released, as I have just stated.

It is not my purpose to enter into an account of the trials . and 
hardships of prison-life in the crowded forts in which we were 
successively confined under strict and sometimes very harsh military rule, 
but it is due to the memory of the commander at Fort Warren, Colonel 
Justin Dimick, that I should leave on record the warm feelings of respect 
and friendship with which he was regarded by the prisoners who knew him 
best, for the unvarying kindness and humanity with which he performed the 
difficult and painful duties of his office. As far as he was permitted to 
do so, he promoted the comfort and convenience of all, and after the war 
was

Page 112 

over and he had been advanced to the rank of General, he came to Baltimore 
as the honored guest of one of his former prisoners, and while there 
received the warm and hearty greeting of others of his prisoners who still 
survived.



Page 113

CHAPTER IX.
A PERSONAL CHAPTER.

I have now completed my task; but perhaps it will be expected that I 
should clearly define my own position. I have no objection to do so.

Both from feeling and on principle I had always been opposed to slavery--
the result in part of the teaching and example of my parents, and 
confirmed by my own reading and observation. In early manhood I became 
prominent in defending the rights of the free colored people of Maryland. 
In the year 1846 I was associated with a small number of persons, of whom 
the Rev. William F. Brand, author of the "Life of Bishop Whittingham," and 
myself, are the only survivors. The other members of the association were 
Dr. Richard S. Steuart, for many years President of the Maryland Hospital 
for the Insane, and himself a slaveholder; Galloway Cheston, a merchant 
and afterwards President of the Board of Trustees of the Johns Hopkins 
University; Frederick W. Brune, my brother-in-law and law-partner; and 
Ramsay McHenry, planter. We were preparing to initiate a movement tending 
to a gradual emancipation within the State, but the growing hostility 
between the North and the South rendered the plan wholly impracticable, 
and it was abandoned.

My opinions, however, did not lead me into sympathy with the abolition 
party. I knew that slavery had existed almost everywhere in the world, and 
still existed in some places,

Page 114 

and that, whatever might be its character elsewhere, it was not in the 
Southern States "the sum of all villainy." On the contrary, it had 
assisted materially in the development of the race. Nowhere else, I 
believe, had negro slaves been so well treated, on the whole, and had 
advanced so far in civilization. They had learned the necessity, as well 
as the habit, of labor; the importance--to some extent at least--of 
thrift; the essential distinctions between right and wrong, and the 
inevitable difference to the individual between right-doing and wrong-
doing; the duty of obedience to law; and--not least--some conception, dim 
though it might be, of the inspiring teachings of the Christian religion. 
They had learned also to cherish a feeling of respect and good will 
towards the best portion of the white race, to whom they looked up, and 
whom they imitated.

I refused to enlist in a crusade against slavery, not only on 
constitutional grounds, but for other reasons. If the slaves were freed 
and clothed with the right of suffrage, they would be incapable of using 
it properly. If the suffrage were withheld, they would be subjected to the 
oppression of the white race without the protection afforded by their 
masters. Thus I could see no prospect of maintaining harmony without a 
disastrous change in our form of government such as prevailed after the 
war, in what is called the period of reconstruction. If there were entire 
equality, and an intermingling of the two races, it would not, as it 
seemed to me, be for the benefit of either. I knew how strong are race 
prejudices, especially when stimulated by competition and interest; how 
cruelly the foreigners, as they were called, had been treated by the 
people in California, and the Indians by our people everywhere; and how, 
in my own city, citizens were for years ruthlessly deprived by the Know-
Nothing party

Page 115 

of the right of suffrage, some because they were of foreign birth, and 
some because they were Catholics. The problem of slavery was to me a 
Gordian knot which I knew not how to untie, and which I dared not attempt 
to cut with the sword. Such a severance involved the horrors of civil war, 
with the wickedness and demoralization which were sure to follow.

I was deeply attached to the Union from a feeling imbibed in early 
childhood and constantly strengthened by knowledge and personal 
experience. I did not believe in secession as a constitutional right, and 
in Maryland there was no sufficient ground for revolution. It was clearly 
for her interest to remain in the Union and go free her slaves. An attempt 
to secede or to revolt would have been an act of folly which I deprecated, 
although I did believe that she, in common with the rest of the South, had 
constitutional rights in regard to slavery which the North was not willing 
to respect.

It was my opinion that the Confederacy would prove to be a rope of sand. I 
thought that the seceding States should have been allowed to depart in 
peace, as General Scott advised, and I believed that afterwards the 
necessities of the situation and their own interest would induce them to 
return, severally, perhaps, to the old Union, but with slavery peacefully 
abolished; for, in the nature of things, I knew that slavery could not 
last forever.

Whether or not my opinions were sound and my hopes well founded, is now a 
matter of little importance, even to myself, but they were at least 
sincere and were not concealed.

There can be no true union in a Republic unless the parts are held 
together by a feeling of common interest, and also of mutual respect.

That there is a common interest no reasonable person can

Page 116 

doubt; but this is not sufficient; and, happily, there is a solid basis 
for mutual respect also.

I have already stated the grounds on which, from their point of view, the 
Southern people were justified in their revolt, and even in the midst of 
the war I recognized what the South is gradually coming to recognize that 
the grounds on which the Northern people waged war--love of the Union and 
hatred of slavery--were also entitled to respect.

I believe that the results achieved--namely, the preservation of the Union 
and the abolition of slavery--are worth all they have cost.

And yet I feel that I am living in a different land from that in which I 
was born, and under a different Constitution, and that new perils have 
arisen sufficient to cause great anxiety. Some of these are the 
consequences of the war, and some are due to other causes. But every 
generation must encounter its own trials, and should extract benefit from 
them if it can. The grave problems growing out of emancipation seem to 
have found a solution in an improving education of the whole people. 
Perhaps education is the true means of escape from the other perils to 
which I have alluded.

Let me state them as they appear to me to exist.

Vast fortunes, which astonish the world, have suddenly been acquired, very 
many by methods of more than doubtful honesty, while the fortunes 
themselves are so used as to benefit neither the possessors nor the 
country.

Republican simplicity has ceased to be a reality, except where it exists 
as a survival in rural districts, and is hardly now mentioned even as a 
phrase. It has been superseded by republican luxury and ostentation. The 
mass of the people, who cannot afford to indulge in either, are sorely 
tempted to covet both.

Page 117 

The individual man does not rely, as he formerly did, on his own strength 
and manhood. Organization for a common purpose is resorted to wherever 
organization is possible. Combinations of capital or of labor, ruled by a 
few individuals, bestride the land with immense power both for good and 
evil. In these combinations the individual counts for little, and is but 
little concerned about his own moral responsibility.

When De Tocqueville, in 1838, wrote his remarkable book on Democracy in 
America, he expressed his surprise to observe how every public question 
was submitted to the decision of the people, and that, when the people had 
decided, the question was settled. Now politicians care little about the 
opinions of the people, because the people care little about opinions. 
Bosses have come into existence to ply their vile trade of office-
brokerage. Rings are formed in which the bosses are masters and the voters 
their henchmen. Formerly decent people could not be bought either with 
money or offices. Political parties have always some honest foundation, 
but rings are factions like those of Rome in her decline, having no 
foundation but public plunder.

Communism, socialism, and labor strikes have taken the place of slavery 
agitation. Many people have come to believe that this is a paternal 
Government from which they have a right to ask for favors, and not a 
Republic in which all are equal. Hence States, cities, corporations, 
individuals, and especially certain favored classes, have no scruple in 
getting money somehow or other, directly or indirectly, out of the purse 
of the Nation, as if the Nation had either purse or property which does 
not belong to the people, for the benefit of the whole people, without 
favor or partiality towards any.

In many ways there is a dangerous tendency towards the centralization of 
power in the National Government, with little opposition on the part of 
the people.

Page 118 

Paper money is held by the Supreme Court to be a lawful substitute for 
gold and silver coin, partly on the ground that this is the prerogative of 
European governments.(1) This is strange constitutional doctrine to those 
who were brought up in the school of Marshall, Story, and Chancellor Kent.

The administration of cities has grown more and more extravagant and 
corrupt, thus leading to the creation of immense debts which oppress the 
people and threaten to become unmanageable.

The national Congress, instead of faithfully administering its trust, has 
become reckless and wasteful of the public money.

But, notwithstanding all this, I rejoice to believe that there is a 
reserve of power in the American people which has never yet failed to 
redress great wrongs when they have come to be fully recognized and 
understood.

A striking instance of this is to be found in the temperance movement, 
which, extreme as it may be in some respects, shows that the conscience of 
the entire country is aroused on a subject of vast difficulty and 
importance.

And other auspicious signs exist, the chief of which I think are that a 
new zeal is manifested in the cause of education; that people of all 
creeds come together as they never did before to help in good works; that 
an independent press, bent on enlightening, not deceiving, the people, is 
making itself heard and respected; and that younger men, who represent the 
best hopes and aspirations of the time, are pressing forward to take the 
place of the politicians of a different school, who represent chiefly 
their own selfish interests, or else a period of hate and discord which 
has passed away forever.

These considerations give me hope and confidence in the country as it 
exists to-day.

(1) Legal Tender Case, Vol. 110 U. S. Reports, p. 421.

Page 119 

Baltimore is the place of my birth, of my home, and of my affections. No 
one could be bound to his native city by ties stronger than mine. Perhaps, 
in view of the incidents of the past, as detailed in this volume, I may be 
permitted to express to the good people of Baltimore my sincere and 
profound gratitude for the generous and unsolicited confidence which, on 
different occasions, they have reposed in me, and for their good will and 
kind feeling, which have never been withdrawn during the years, now not a 
few, which I have spent in their service.