As March ended and April began in 1862, it was clear that emancipation would soon come to the District of Columbia. While the ability of Congress to end slavery legislatively throughout the rest of the United States was greatly doubted due to 1857’s Dred Scott decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, its authority, then as now, over Washington, D.C. was absolute. Virtually no one questioned Congress’ constitutional ability, if it so wished, to end slavery there by legislation. And as April 1862 dawned it was plain that Congress would soon do just that. A bill nearing passage in early April would immediately free slaves in the District of Columbia and compensate their owners if they were loyal.
Although there were less than 2,000 slaves in Washington, D.C., by early 1862, the intentions of Congress sent worried shivers through some District slaveholders. Like slaveholders elsewhere, they had long feared the consequences of emancipation, both for them personally and society generally. They also did not like that they only would receive $300 per slave as compensation from the federal government, which in most cases was a considerably smaller sum than the market value of their human property.
Not surprisingly, some slaveholders took an obvious step: they withdrew their slaves from Washington, D.C., to neighboring Maryland, where slavery was still legal and seemingly well-entrenched. The National Republican, organ of the Republican Party in the federal capital reported in its March 31, 1862 issue:
The paper finished by promising, “We have the names of a number of individuals who are engaged in the business of running off slaves, and shall give them publicly in a future issue.”
In any case, it is apparent that Mrs. Matthews and some other District slaveholders were intent on thwarting the intent of the impending Washington, D.C. emancipation bill. Obviously, even the prospect of compensation could not induce some slave owners there to free their human property. In doing so, they carried out on a small scale a practice that was already and would continue to be practiced on a larger scale by slaveholders further south during the Civil War, who “refugeed” their slaves from locations threatened by Union forces to places further away from the war’s action (Texas was a common destination).
For the District slaveholders, however, Maryland would prove, at best, a temporary refuge. Although the state’s slaveholders had dismissed with ill-concealed contempt President Lincoln’s offer to assist them financially in a plan of gradual compensated emancipation, abolitionist sentiment, long latent in the state, was beginning to stir in 1862. Slavery in Maryland would be dealt another blow soon by the advent of black military service in the Union, helping to hasten the end of slavery in the state, which had long been in decline due to the collapse of tobacco prices after the American Revolution. A new state constitution passed on November 1, 1864, enacted by a legislature which had come under the control of those same long-latent abolitionists, would finally end slavery formally in Maryland. Slaveholders in the state would receive no compensation for their slaves, unlike their counterparts in the District of Columbia that went along with emancipation there. Hence, by pulling some of her slaves out of the District into Maryland in March 1862, Mrs. Matthews might have delayed their liberation, but in the end received no compensation when they finally did become free.
Source: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82014760/1862-03-31/ed-1/seq-3/
Pingback: Resisting Emancipation in Washington, D.C. – Donald Shaffer | Western Mass Civil War Sesquicentennial