Substantial changes in the structure of the Board of Public Works and in the
state's policy toward its existing internal improvements were on the horizon, but they
were merely incidental when viewed against the more fundamental political shifts
occurring in the state.
The debate over slavery, or more precisely, over emancipation, never far from the
forefront, was fast becoming the critical and most divisive issue in the state. It was
an issue of constitutional dimension in Maryland, for the 1850-51 Constitutional Con-
vention flatly forbade the General Assembly from passing any law "abolishing the
relation of master or slave, as it now exists in this State";1 thus emancipation in
Maryland would require an amendment to either federal law or the state Constitution.
The issue was forced by the Lincoln administration. In March 1862 the president
outlined to Congress a proposal for giving federal assistance to any loyal state that
provided for compensated emancipation. This was followed in short order by an act of
Congress abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, with compensation. Those
actions, almost at once, caused a rift in the Unionist party—a rift that, within a year,
became an open split.
The rhetoric of the two groups somewhat beclouded the issue and suggests that
the differences were more of timing and tactics than of principle. The conservative
party leaders, though fully supporting Lincoln's war aims, were unwilling to endorse
his proposal for compensated emancipation, even if the actual emancipation were to
occur in the future. They preferred to postpone the issue until the end of the war and
then to leave it to a state constitutional convention. More "radical" party members,
calling themselves Unconditional Unionists, met separately in Baltimore in May 1862
and adopted a resolution affirming support for the president's emancipation plan. Later
they softened their stance a bit by making clear their disavowal of violence and urging
emancipation "legally and constitutionally ... at the earliest period compatible with
the best interests of the State."2 Inferentially, at least, emancipation was not to await
the end of hostilities.
Whether for this or other reasons, an open schism developed to the point that
during 1863 Unionist party groups met separately and had little formal communi-
cation with each other. Efforts at reconciliation failed, and as the November 1863
elections approached each nominated a slate of candidates.
There is some dispute about just how free the 1863 elections were. Military au-
thorities were much in evidence and, through arrests of "disloyal" persons, enforce-
