“Iniquitous and most dishonorable to Maryland, is that dreary system of partial bondage which her laws have hitherto supported with a solicitude worthy of a better object, and her citizens by their practice, countenanced. Founded in a disgraceful traffic, to which the parent country lent its fostering aid, from motives of interest, but which even she would have disdained to encourage, had England been the destined mart of such inhuman merchandize, its continuance is as shameful as its origin.
I have no hope that the stream of general liberty will forever flow unpolluted through the mire of partial bondage, or that they who have been habituated to lord it over others, will not, in time, become base enough to let others lord it over them. If they resist, it will be the struggle of pride and selfishness, not of principle.”
THE VOICE OF LEIGH.
In the Legislature of Virginia, in 1832, Mr. Leigh said:—
“I thought, till very lately that it was known to every body that, during the Revolution, and for many years after, the abolition of slavery was a favorite topic with many of our ablest Statesmen, who entertained with respect all the schemes which wisdom or ingenuity could suggest for its accomplishment.”
THE VOICE OF MARSHALL.
Thomas Marshall, of Fauquier, said, in the Virginia Legislature, in 1832:—
“Wherefore, then, object to slavery? Because it is ruinous to the whites—retards improvements, roots out an industrious population, banishes the yeomanry of the country—deprives the spinner, the weaver, the smith, the shoemaker, the carpenter, of employment and support.”
THE VOICE OF BOLLING.
Philip A. Bolling, of Buckingham, a member of the Legislature of Virginia in 1832, said:—