The Continental Monthly, Vol V. Issue III. March, 1864 | Page 2

both in 1790
had nearly the same population, but, as will be shown hereafter, with
vastly superior natural advantages in favor of Maryland.
Area of Maryland, 11,124 square miles; shore lines, by tables of United
States Coast Survey, viz.: main shore, including bays, sounds, etc., 503
miles, islands 298, rivers to head of tide water 535; total, 1,336 miles.
Area of Massachusetts, 7,800 square miles; shore lines, by tables of
United States Coast Survey, viz.: main shore, including bays, sounds,
etc., 435 miles, islands 259, rivers to head of tide water 70; total, 764
miles. When we mark the Potomac and its tributaries, the lower
Susquehanna, the deep and numerous streams of the Chesapeake, the
commercial advantages of Maryland over Massachusetts are vast
indeed. Looking at the ocean shore of Maryland, and also at the
Chesapeake Bay, the largest and finest estuary in the world, indented
with numerous sounds and navigable inlets, three fourths of its length
for both shores being within Maryland, and comparing this deep and
tranquil and protected basin, almost one continuous harbor, with the
rockbound coast of Massachusetts, lashed by the stormy Atlantic, the
superiority of Maryland is striking.
Mortality in Maryland, by the late Census, viz., deaths from 1st June,
1859, to 31st May, 1860, 7,370 persons. Same time in Massachusetts,
21,303; making the ratio of deaths to the number living in Maryland,
one to every 92, and in Massachusetts one to every 57; and the
percentage of deaths in Maryland 1.09, and in Massachusetts 1.76. This
rate of mortality for Massachusetts is confirmed by the late official
report of their Secretary of State to the Legislature.
As to area, then, Maryland exceeds Massachusetts 43 per cent.; as to
the shore line, that of Maryland is nearly double that of Massachusetts.
As to climate, that of Maryland, we have seen, is far the most
salubrious. This is a vast advantage, not only in augmented wealth and
numbers, from fewer deaths, but also as attracting capital and
immigration. This milder and more salubrious climate gives to

Maryland longer periods for sowing, working, and harvesting crops, a
more genial sun, larger products, and better and longer crop seasons,
great advantages for stock, especially in winter, decreased consumption
of fuel, a greater period for the use of hydraulic power, and of canals
and navigable streams. The area of Maryland fit for profitable culture is
more than double that of Massachusetts, the soil much more fertile, its
mines of coal and iron, with the fluxes all adjacent, rich and
inexhaustible; whereas Massachusetts has no coal, and no valuable
mines of iron or fluxes. When we reflect that coal and iron are the great
elements of modern progress, and build up mighty empires, this
advantage of Maryland over Massachusetts is almost incalculable. The
hydraulic power of Maryland also greatly exceeds that of
Massachusetts. Such are the vast natural advantages of Maryland over
Massachusetts. Now let us observe the results. Population of Maryland
in 1790, 319,728; in 1860, 687,034; increase, 367,300. Population of
Massachusetts in 1790, 378,717; in 1860, 1,231,065; increase, 852,348;
difference of increase in favor of Massachusetts, 485,048; excess of
Massachusetts over Maryland in 1790, 58,989, and in 1860, 544,031.
This result is amazing, when we regard the far greater area of Maryland
and her other vast natural advantages. The population of Maryland in
1790 was 28 to the square mile (28.74), and in 1860, 61 to the square
mile (61.76); whereas Massachusetts had 48 to the square mile in 1790
(48.55), and 157 to the square mile in 1860 (157.82). Thus
Massachusetts had only 20 more to the square mile in 1790, and 96
more to the square mile in 1860. But if the area of Maryland and
Massachusetts had been reversed, Massachusetts with the area of
Maryland, and the population of Massachusetts of 1860 to the square
mile, would have numbered then 1,755,661, and Maryland with the
area of Massachusetts, and the population of Maryland of 1860 to the
square mile, would have had then a population of only 481,728 upon
that basis, leaving Massachusetts in 1860, 1,273,393 more people than
Maryland.
By the census of 1790, Massachusetts was the fourth in population of
all the States, and Maryland the sixth; but in 1860, Massachusetts was
the seventh, and Maryland the nineteenth; and if each of the thirty-four
States increases in the same ratio from 1860 to 1870 as from 1850 to

1860, Maryland will be only the twenty-fifth State.
These facts all conclusively attest the terrible effects of slavery on
Maryland, and this is only one of the dreadful sacrifices she has made
in retaining the institution. As to wealth, power, and intellectual
development, the loss cannot be overstated.
Nor can manufactures account for the difference, as shown by the still
greater increase of the agricultural Northwest. Besides,