The First Congress, 1790: The Slavery Debate, Conclusion

The memorials were referred to committee by a vote of 43 to 14.

On March 16 the committee made its report, which was that the Constitution expressly restrained the general Government from prohibiting the importation of slaves until 1808, and, by fair construction, prohibited Congress from interfering before that date with the emancipation of slaves, or the regulation of slaves by the States; the committee trusted, however, that the various legislatures would revise their laws from time to time to ameliorate the condition of the slaves.
The committee went on to declare that Congress had authority to lay a tax not exceeding ten dollars on each slave imported, and to make provision for the humane treatment of the slaves in passage, as well as to prohibit foreigners from fitting out slave ships in a port of the United States. Lastly, they advised that Congress inform the memorialists that, wherever it had jurisdiction in matters concerning slavery, it would be exercised on the principles of “justice, humanity, and good policy.”
This report was debated from March 17 to 23, when it was passed, with amendments eliminating the suggestion to the State legislatures that Congress had the power to emancipate slaves after 1808 and the final notice to the memorialists. The vote upon entering on the Journal the original report of the committee, and the amended report, was passed by 29 to 25 votes. The chief speakers in the debate were, in favor of the original report: Thomas Hartley [Pa.] and Elias Boudinot [N. J.]; against it, Alexander White [Va.], Aedamus Burke and William L. Smith, of South Carolina.

(from Great Debates in American History, by United States Congress, Great Britain Parliament, Marion Mills Miller, published 1913, Current Literature Publishing Company)

The First Congress: 1790, Enter Benjamin Franklin

On February 12 the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, of which Benjamin Franklin was president, presented a memorial, not on the abolition merely of the slave trade but of slavery in general. This declared:

From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the portion and is still the birthright of all men, and influenced by the strong ties of humanity and the principles of their institution, your memorialists conceive themselves bound to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen the bands of slavery and promote a general enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. Under these impressions they earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery; that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage, and who, amid the general joy of surrounding freedom, are groaning in servile subjection; that you will devise means for removing this inconsistency from the character of the American people; that you will promote mercy and justice toward this distressed race, and that you will step to the very verge of the power vested in you for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our fellowmen.

Mr. Hartley then called up the memorial presented the day before, from the annual meeting of Friends at Philadelphia, for a second reading; whereupon the same was read a second time and moved to be committed.

In the debate which ensued the leading speakers for commitment were: John Page [Va.], James Madison [Va.], Thomas Scott [Pa.], and Elbridge Gerry [Mass.]; those against commitment were Thomas T. Tucker [S. C.], Aedamus Burke [S. C.], William L. Smith [S. C.], James Jackson [Ga.], and Abraham Baldwin [Ga.]. ...

The First Congress: The 1790 Slavery Debate (part 3) Mr. Hartley & Mr. Jackson

PETITIONS AGAINST SLAVERY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 11, 1790
MR. HARTLEY thought the memorialists did not deserve to be aspersed for their conduct if influenced by motives of benignity. They solicit the legislature of the Union to prevent, as far as is in their power, the increase of a licentious traffic; nor do they merit censure because their behavior has the appearance of more morality than other people. Congress ought not to refuse to hear the applications of their fellow citizens while those applications contain nothing unconstitutional or offensive.

MR. JACKSON.—I apprehend, if through the interference of the general Government the slave trade was abolished, it would evince to the people a disposition toward a total emancipation, and they would hold their property in jeopardy. Any extraordinary attention of Congress to this petition may have, in some degree, a similar effect. I would beg to ask those, then, who are desirous of freeing the negroes if they have funds sufficient to pay for them? If they have, they may come forward on that business with some propriety; but, if they have not, they 
should keep themselves quiet, and not interfere with a business in which they are not interested. They may as well come forward and solicit Congress to interdict the West India trade because it is injurious to the morals of mankind; from thence we import rum, which has a debasing influence upon the consumer. I hope the House will order the petition to lie on the table, in order to prevent an alarm to our Southern brethren.

(from Great Debates in American History, by United States Congress, Great Britain Parliament, Marion Mills Miller, published 1913, Current Literature Publishing Company)

The First Congress: 1790, Enter The Quakers

from Great Debates in American History, by United States Congress, Great Britain Parliament, Marion Mills Miller, published 1913, Current Literature Publishing Company:

That the questions connected with slavery had not been settled by the compromises on the subject in the Constitution was shown by a petition presented to Congress in its first session, praying for the abolition of the slave trade.
On February 11, 1790, Thomas Fitzsimons [Pa.] presented a petition from the Yearly Meeting in 1789 of Friends (Quakers) in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and western parts of Maryland and Virginia praying:
That Congress might make “sincere and impartial inquiry whether it be not an essential part of the duty of your exalted station to exert upright endeavors, to the full extent of your power, to remove every obstruction to public righteousness, which the influence or artifice of particular persons, governed by the narrow, mistaken views of self-interest, has occasioned, and whether, notwithstanding such seeming impediments, it be not in reality within your power to exercise justice and mercy, which, if adhered to, we cannot doubt must produce the abolition of the slave trade.”
In their preamble the petitioners stated that a similar memorial had been made to Congress in 1783, but that,
“. . . though the Christian rectitude of the concern was by the delegates generally acknowledged, yet, not being vested with the powers of legislation, they declined promoting any public remedy against the gross national iniquity of trafficking in the persons of fellowmen; but divers of the legislative bodies of the different States on this continent have since manifested their sense of the public detestation due to the licentious wickedness of the African trade for slaves, and the inhuman tyranny and blood-guiltiness inseparable from it; the debasing influence whereof most certainly tends to lay waste the virtue and, of course, the happiness of the people.”
Mr. John Lawrence also presented an Address from the Society of Friends, in the city of New York, in which they set forth their desire of cooperating with their Southern brethren in their protest against the slave trade.
It was moved to refer the petitions to a committee. This was opposed by James Jackson [Ga.], as diverting the attention of the members from the great question before them to one of “questionable policy,” and which Congress could take up without advisers, “because the Constitution expressly mentions all the power they can exercise on the subject.”
In the debate which ensued on the subject the leading speakers in behalf of committing the petitions were James Madison [Va.], Thomas Hartley [Pa.], and Roger Sherman [Conn.]; against committing it, Michael J. Stone [Md.], James Jackson [Ga.], William L. Smith [S. C.], and Thomas T. Tucker [S. C.].