ng, and uneducated
slaves. In the realm of science, as well as in the direction of labor,
knowledge is power, education is wealth and progress; and that this is
applicable to the masses who compose a community, and especially to the
working classes, is demonstrated by our American official Census. In
proof of this position, I will proceed by a reference to the official
tables of our Census of 1860, to show not only in particular Slave
States, as compared with other Free States, whether old or new, Eastern
or Western, or making the comparison of the aggregate of all the Slave
with the Free States, the annual product of the latter _per capita_ is
more than double that of the Slave States. I begin with Maryland as
compared with Massachusetts, because Maryland, in proportion to her
area, has greater natural advantages than any one of the Slave or Free
States; and if the comparison with the Free States is most unfavorable
to her, it will be more so as to any other Southern State; as the Census
shows that, from 1790 to 1860, as well as from 1850 to 1860, Maryland
increased in population per square mile more rapidly than any other
slaveholding State.

We must consider the area, soil, climate, mines, hydraulic power,
location, shore line, bays, sounds, and rivers, and such other causes as
affect the advance of wealth and population.

The relative progress of Maryland has been slow indeed. The population
of the Union, by the Census of 1790, was 3,929,827, of which Maryland,
containing then 319,728, constituted a twelfth part (12.29). In 1860,
the Union numbered 31,445,080, and Maryland 687,034, constituting a
forty-fifth part (45.76). In 1790, the Free States numbered 1,968,455,
Maryland's population then being equal to one sixth (6.12); but, in
1860, the population of the Free States was 18,920,078, Maryland's
number then being equal to one twenty-seventh part (27.52). But, if
Maryland had increased as rapidly from 1790 to 1860 as the whole Union,
her proportion, one twelfth part, would have made her numbers in 1860,
2,620,315; and if her proportional increase had equalled that of the
Free States, her ratio, one sixth, would have made her population in
1860, 3,153,392.

I take the areas from the report (November 29, 1860) of the Commissioner
of the General Land Office, where they are for the first time accurately
given, 'excluding the water surface.' The population is taken from the
Census Tables. I compare first Massachuset