William L. Smith (S.C.), re: emancipation

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)

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: The Slavery Debate, cont'd (part 5) Mr. Smith

PETITIONS AGAINST SLAVERY–Continued
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 12, 1790
MR. W. SMITH, of South Carolina, insisted that it was not in the power of the House to grant the prayer of the petition, which went to the total abolishment of the slave trade, and it was therefore unnecessary to commit it. If gentlemen can assign no good reason for the measure, they will not support it when they are told that it will create jealousies and alarm in the Southern States; for I can assure them that there is no point on which they are more jealous and suspicious than on a business with which they think the Government has nothing to do.

When we entered into this confederacy we did it from political, not from moral, motives, and I do not think my constituents want to learn morals from the petitioners; I do not believe they want improvement in their moral system; if they do, they can get it at home. 
The gentleman from Georgia has justly stated the jealousy of the Southern States. On entering into this Government they apprehended that the other States, not knowing the necessity the citizens of the Southern States were under to hold this species of property, would, from motives of humanity and benevolence, be led to vote for a general emancipation; and, had they not seen that the Constitution provided against the effect of such a disposition, I may be bold to say they never would have 
adopted it.

We look upon this measure as an attack upon the palladium of the property of our country; it is therefore our duty to oppose it by every means in our power. Gentlemen should consider that when we entered into a political connection with the other States this property was there; it was acquired under 
a former government, conformably to the laws and Constitution, therefore anything that will tend to deprive them of that property must be an ex post facto law, and, as such, is forbidden by our political compact.

I said the States would never have entered into the confederation unless their property had been guaranteed to them, for such is the state of agriculture in that country that without slaves it must be abandoned. Why will these people, then, make use of arguments to induce the slave to turn his hand against his master? We labor under difficulties enough from the ravages of the late war. A gentleman can hardly come from that country with a servant or two, either to this place [New York] or Philadelphia, but there are persons trying to seduce his servants to leave him; and, when they have done this, the poor wretches are obliged to rob their master in order to obtain a subsistence; all those, therefore, who are concerned in this seduction are accessories to the robbery.

The reproach which they [the abolitionists] cast upon the owners of negro property is the want of humanity. I believe the proprietors have as much humanity as persons in any part of the continent, and are as conspicuous for their good morals as their neighbors. The memorial of the Quakers 
relates to a matter in which they are no more interested than any other sect, and can only be considered as a piece of advice, which it is not customary to refer to a committee; but if it is supposed to pray for what they think a moral purpose, is that sufficient to induce us to commit it? What may appear a moral virtue in their eyes may not be so in reality. I have heard of a sect of Shaking Quakers, who, I presume, suppose their tenets of a moral tendency. I am informed one of them forbids to intermarry. Now, if these people were to petition Congress to pass a law prohibiting matrimony would gentlemen agree to refer such a petition ? I think if they would reject one of that nature as improper they ought also to reject this.

(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 4) Mr. Smith & Mr. Sherman

PETITIONS AGAINST SLAVERY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 11, 1790
MR. SMITH.—If I understood it right on its first reading the petition prays that we should take measures for the abolition of the slave trade. This is desiring an unconstitutional act, because the Constitution secures that trade to the States, independent of congressional restrictions, for a term of twenty-one years. If, therefore, it prays for a violation of constitutional rights, it ought to he rejected as an attempt upon the virtue and patriotism of the House.

MR. SHERMAN observed that the petitioners from New York stated that they had applied to the legislature of that State to prohibit certain practices which they conceived to be improper, and which tended to injure the well-being of the community; that the legislature had considered the application, but had applied no remedy because they supposed that power was exclusively vested in the general Government under the Constitution of the United States; it would, therefore, be proper to commit that petition, in order to ascertain what are the powers of the general Government in the case.

(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.].