https://fssp.artinterp2.org/files/original/a8fa9fedadf87221b6cb84d8fad346b5.pdf b1deb596f99462ed698d9fd2adc8d9a2 https://fssp.artinterp2.org/files/original/298abea5e2109a692edc2eb634d9e870.pdf 520fd2a0539754b2010f5f689fdcbef1 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Black Families in Civil War Maryland Description An account of the resource This collection documents the experiences of Black Maryland families during the Civil War. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Maryland Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource The Freedmen and Southern Society Project Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Aide-de-camp to the Commander of the Third Separate Brigade; and the Governor of Maryland to the Commander of the Middle Department Easton, Talbot Co. Md. Nov. 9th 1864 Brig. Genl. H. H. Lockwood Comdg 3rd Sep. Brig. 8th A.C. General: I beg leave to call your attention to certain practices in the counties through which I have passed, viz: Somerset, Worcester, Dorchester & Talbot, which are alike in conflict with natural justice and civil law. The laws of this state provide that all children, whose parents are by the Orphans Court unable to support them, may be bound out by the orphans’ Court until of age but in all such cases the parent or parents may select the party to whom the child is to be bound. Now in the counties above named colored children have been taken from parents who were perfectly able to support them; others sixteen, seventeen and even eighteen years of age who might easily maintain themselves and also assist in the support of their mothers and younger brothers and sisters are also taken and bound out and without any regard being paid to the wishes of the parent in the selection of the person to whom they were bound. In other cases parents have appeared before the Orphans’ Court and requested that their children might be bound to other parties than those named by the court and their requests have been entirely disregarded. It is needless to mention that in a large majority of cases these children are bound to southern sympathisers. I think, General, some steps should be taken to regulate this matter. I see no remedy except the partial execution, at least, of the order issued by Maj. Genl. Wallace, last spring, declaring martial law in certain Eastern Shore Counties. I did not deem it necessary to take affidavits in this matter, as I presume there can be no doubt as to the correctness of my information. I am, General Yours Very Respectfully James C. Mullikin Lieut. & A.D.C. State of Maryland EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Annapolis Nov. 10th 1864 Major Genl. Lew. Wallace Comdg. Middle Department General: I have just read your General Order No 112 published in this morning’s papers in reference to protection to be furnished by the Military Authorities to Slaves recently emancipated under the provisions of the new Constitution of the State just adopted— The general scope and object of your order as I understand it, is, I think, if the order itself is discretely executed, calculated to be of much service in assisting a class generally very ignorant, now for the first time thrown upon their own resources— I fear however that without some explanation, it may mislead some of the Civil Officers of the State in connection with their duties as prescribed in our legislative Code— I do not refer to any thing connected with the Slave Code of the State; that of course is entirely abrogated in effect by the adoption of the new Constitution, — but there are other provisions in our Code having exclusive reference to the free Colored population of the State, now, more than ever requiring strict observance from the large and sudden increase made to that class of our population— I cannot suppose that you design any interference with that portion of our Statute laws, as your order itself seems only to look to the interposition of a Military Authority or protection until the Legislature of the State may make such protection unnecessary— Under these circumstances I have deemed it proper to call to your attention the 6th Article of our Code of Public General Laws relating to apprentices, whereby provision is made for binding out the minor children of free persons of color who have not the means or are unwilling themselves to take care of their offspring. The law provides all proper precautions for notifying such parents of the proceedings, summoning them before our Orphans Courts and consulting the wishes of both parent and child on the subject, and you will find it laid down in the Article mentioned sec. 31 et seq. I have the less hesitation in relying upon it as embracing very salutary and necessary provisions particularly required by the new state of things introduced by the present Constitution, from the fact that I know the Convention which adopted that Constitution had themselves at one time during their session introduced similar provisions to meet the obvious necessity of taking care of an infant class thus suddenly deprived of the support to which they had been accustomed, and only ultimately struck out that provision on the ground that this very enactment to which I have referred, met the requirements of the case. Without the exercise of some such power by the proper County Authorities, there would be great danger, especially during the inclement season now approaching, of large numbers of that infant population, thus suddenly thrown adrift in every County of the State suffering very severely, and who could not reach even the protection which your order seems intended to provide in the City of Baltimore. What I would therefore respectfully suggest in connection with the subject of your order, is that the Orphans Courts may be given to understand that you have no purpose of interfering with their execution of existing laws on the subject of free negroes, or at least no farther than to require that no abuse of the authority thereby vested in them shall be practiced, and that the terms and limitations of the law be strictly observed Very Respectfully Your obdt. Servt. A W Bradford Lieut. James C. Mullikin to Brig. Genl. H. H. Lockwood, 9 Nov. 1864, M-762 1864, Letters Received, ser. 2343, Middle Dept. & 8th Army Corps, RG 393 Pt. 1 [C-4237]; A W Bradford to Major Genl. Lew. Wallace, 10 Nov. 1864, M-765 1864, Letters Received, ser. 2343, Middle Dept. & 8th Army Corps, RG 393 Pt. 1 [C-4238]. General Orders No. 112 named abuses of the apprenticeship system on the Eastern Shore. It charged that “evil disposed parties in certain counties of the State of Maryland… intend obstructing the operation, and nullifying, as far as they can, the emancipation provision of the New Constitution: and that for this purpose they are availing themselves of certain laws, portions of the ancient slave code of Maryland, as yet unrepealed, to initiate as respects the persons heretofore slaves, a system of forced apprenticeship.” The order thus stipulated that “all persons within the limits of the Middle Department heretofore slaves, but now free, by operation of the New Constitution, shall be considered under special military protection, until the Legislature of Maryland may, by its enactments, make such military protection unnecessary.” It created a “Freedmen’s Bureau for said Department” headquartered in Baltimore to investigate the claims of Black Marylanders and make arrests when appropriate. To accomplish this end, it required provost marshals, “particularly those on the Eastern and Western Shores” where these abuses were most prevalent, to hear complaints and assist the head of the newly-created Freedmen’s Bureau, Major William M. Este, in supporting the rights of Black Marylanders. Finally, the order created a “Freedmen’s Rest” to temporarily care for “the sick, helpless, and needy,” which would be funded by donations, fines, and if necessary, levies on the property of Confederate sympathizers. (General Orders. No. 112, Head-Quarters Middle Department, Eighth Army Corps, 9 Nov. 1864, vol. 61 8AC, General Orders (Printed), ser. 2352, Middle Dept. & 8th Army Corps, RG 393 Pt. 1 [C-4170], published in Freedom, ser. 1, vol. 2, pp. 513-515.) Sections ten through thirty of Article Six of the 1860 Maryland Code provided regulations for white children and sections thirty-one through forty covered the apprenticing of “the child of any free negro.” Free-born Black children were subject to harsher penalties once apprenticed and could be bound more easily than their white neighbors. Where white children could only be bound after becoming orphans or in cases “extreme indigence,” section thirty-one stated merely that “the child of any free negro” may be bound “if it shall appear upon examination before [an Orphans’ Court] that it would be better for the habits and comfort of such child that it should be bound as an apprentice to some white person to learn to labor.” Although article fifteen required that white apprentices receive a “reasonable education in reading, writing and arithmetic,” article thirty-six stipulated that “it shall not be necessary… in any indenture of a negro made by the trustees of the poor, to require that any education shall be given to such negro apprentice.” Article forty, moreover, mandated that “if any negro apprentice abscond or run away,” they would not only be held liable to the apprentice holder for any loss of income, but also “the said court shall have full power to authorize the master of such absconding apprentice to sell such apprentice, and for the whole period he may have to serve, to any person within the State.” No portion of Article Six permitted white children to be sold. (The Maryland Code, vol. 1 [Baltimore, 1860], pp. 31-39.) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Amid widespread abuses of the apprenticeship system to bind formerly enslaved children, Governor Bradford complains about oversight efforts Description An account of the resource James C. Mullikin (ADC) to H.H. Lockwood (3d sep brig) notifying him on abuses of apprenticeship system and suggesting the implementation of martial law in relevant counties on the Eastern Shore. Followed by A.W. Bradford (Gov of MD) to Gen. Lew Wallace (comdg Middle Dept) complaining of Wallace's General Order No. 112, which provided protections for formerly enslaved people from the apprenticeship system under which formerly enslaved children were widely bound to their former enslavers on the Eastern Shore. Under antebellum Maryland law, Bradford argued, "provision is made for binding out the minor children of free persons of color who have not the means or are unwilling themselves to take care of their offspring." This practice of apprenticeship, Bradford claimed, grew from the "necessity of taking care of an infant class thus suddenly deprived of the support to which they had been accustomed." Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 11/9/1864 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Eastern Shore, MD Apprentice children