Search using this query type:

Search only these record types:

Exhibit Page
Simple Page

Advanced Search (Items only)

Home > Conventions > Transcribe Minutes > Transcribe Page

Scripto | Transcribe Page

Log in to Scripto | Create an account | About the Project | Advanced Instructions | Share your story

Maryland Free Colored People's Convention, July 27-28, 1852.


« previous page | next page »

This page has been marked complete.



  • Type what you see in the pdf, even if it's misspelled or incorrect.
  • Leave a blank line before each new paragraph.
  • Type page numbers if they appear.
  • Put unclear words in brackets, with a question mark, like: [[Pittsburg?]]
  • Click "Save transcription" frequently!


  • Include hyphens splitting words at the end of a line. Type the full word without the hyphen. If a hyphen appears at the end of a page, type the full word on the second page.
  • Include indents, tabs, or extra spaces.

Current Saved Transcription [history]

James A. Jones, of Kent, thought his native county equal to any other in the State, and that colored persons were not more oppressed there than elsewhere in the State.

Charles O. Fisher moved that a committee of five be appointed to draw up a memorial to the Legislature of Maryland, praying more indulgence to the colored people of the State, in order that they may have time to prepare themselves for a change in their condition, and for removal to some other land.

Daniel Koburn, of Baltimore, in referring to the oppressive laws of the State, said the hog law of Baltimore was better moderated than that in reference to the colored people. The hog law said at certain seasons they should run about, and at certain seasons be taken up; but the law referring to colored people allowed them to be taken up at any time.

Charles Dobson, of Talbot, said that the time had come when free colored men in his county had been taken up and sold for one year, and when that year was out, taken up and sold for another year. Who knew what the next Legislature would do; and if any arrangements could be made to better their condition, he was in favor of them. He was for the appointing the committee on the memorial.

B. Jenifer, of Dorchester, opposed the resolution; he was not in favor of memorializing the Legislature--it had determined to carry out certain things, and it was a progressive work.

Chas. Wyman, of Carolina; Joseph Bantem, of Talbot; John H. Walker, Chas. O. Fisher, and others, discussed the resolution, which was finally adopted.

The following is the committee appointed: Jno. H. Walker and James A. Handy, of Baltimore; Wm. Perkins, of Kent; Thomas Buller of Dorchester, and Daniel J. Ross, of Hartford county.

A resolution of thanks to the officers of the Convention, the reporters of the morning papers, and authorities for their protection, was adopted. The proceedings were also ordered to be printed in pamphlet form.

The Convention, at 3 o'clock, adjourned to meet on the second Monday in November, 1853, at Frederick, Md.

The proceedings of the Convention yesterday were conducted in the most credible manner, and no disturbances took place either in or out of the Hall by the "outsiders" a feeling reprimand, administered by the police to several of the rowdies, having had a beneficial effect. In the Convention, during its sittings, much talent has been observable in a number of the members, who have displayed an eloquence, power of argument and knowledge, that would have done credit to any legislative body. The object of the Convention was clearly set forth, and various matters debated in the most entertaining manner.

Baltimore Sun, July 29, 1852

You don't have permission to discuss this page.

Current Page Discussion [history]