The First Congress, 1790; debates re House Committee Report on the Quaker slavery petitions, March 17-23, 1790:
- MR. SMITH.— ... As the laws of the United States were paramount to those of the individual States, the Federal regulations would abrogate those of the States, consequently the States would thus be divested of a power which it was evident they now had and might exercise whenever they thought proper. But admitting that Congress had authority to manumit [emancipate] the slaves in America, and were disposed to exercise it, would the Southern States acquiesce in such a measure without a struggle? Would the citizens of that country tamely suffer their property to be torn from them? Would even the citizens of the other States which did not possess this property desire to have all the slaves let loose upon them? Would not such a step be injurious even to the slaves themselves? It was well known that they were an indolent people, improvident, averse to labor: when emancipated they would either starve or plunder. Nothing was a stronger proof of the absurdity of emancipation than the fanciful schemes which the friends to the measure had suggested. One was to ship them out of the country and colonize them in some foreign region. This plan admitted that it would be dangerous to retain
them within the United States after they were manumitted: but surely it would be inconsistent with humanity to banish these people to a remote country, and to expel them from their native soil, and from places to which they had a local attachment. It would be no less repugnant to the principles of freedom not to allow them to remain here if they desired it. How could they be called freemen if they were, against their consent, to be expelled the country? Thus did the advocates for emancipation acknowledge that the blacks, when liberated, ought not to remain here to stain the blood of the whites by a mixture of the races.
Another plan was to liberate all those who should be born after a certain limited period. Such a scheme would produce this very extraordinary phenomenon, that the mother would be a slave and her child would be free. These young emancipated negroes, by associating with their enslaved parents, would participate in all the debasement which slavery is said to occasion. But, allowing that a practicable scheme of general emancipation could be devised, there can be no doubt that the two races would still remain distinct. It is known from experience that the whites had such an idea of their superiority over the blacks that they never even associated with them; even the warmest friends to the blacks kept them at a distance and rejected all intercourse with them. Could any instance be quoted of their intermarrying? The Quakers asserted that nature had made all men equal and that the difference of color should not place negroes on a worse footing in society than the whites; but had any of them ever married a negro, and would any of them suffer their children to mix their blood with that of a black? They would view with abhorrence such an alliance.
Mr. Smith then read some extracts from Mr. Jefferson's “Notes on Virginia,” proving that negroes were by nature an inferior race of beings, and that the whites would always feel a repugnance at mixing their blood with that of the blacks.
(from Great Debates in American History, by United States Congress, Great Britain Parliament, Marion Mills Miller, published 1913, Current Literature Publishing Company)
