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: The 1790 Slavery Debate (part 1) Mr. Madison

PETITIONS AGAINST SLAVERY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 11, 1790
MR. MADISON.—I apprehend gentlemen need not be alarmed at any measure it is likely Congress will take, because they will recollect that the Constitution secures to the individual States the right of admitting, if they think proper, the importation of slaves into their own territory for eighteen years yet unexpired; subject, however, to a tax, if Congress is disposed to impose it, of not more than ten dollars on each person. The petition, if I mistake not, speaks of artifices used by self-interested persons to carry on this trade. If anything is within the Federal authority to restrain such violation of the rights of nations and of mankind, as is supposed to be practiced in some parts of the United States, it will certainly tend to the interest and honor of the community to attempt a remedy, and is a proper subject for our discussion. It may be that foreigners take the advantage of the liberty afforded them by the American trade to employ our shipping in the slave trade between Africa and the West Indies, when they are restrained from employing their own by restrictive laws of their nation. –If this is the case, is there any person of humanity that would not wish to prevent them? Another consideration why we should commit the petition is that we may give no ground of alarm by a serious opposition, as if we were about to take measures that were unconstitutional.

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