The First Congress, 1790: The Slavery Debate, cont'd (part 3) Mr. Jackson

PETITIONS AGAINST SLAVERY–Continued
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 12, 1790
MR. JACKSON differed with the gentleman last up, and supposed the master had a qualified property in his slave. He said the contrary doctrine would go to the destruction of every species of personal service. The gentleman said he did not stand in need of religion to induce him to reprobate slavery, but if he is guided by that evidence upon which the Christian system is founded he will find that religion is not against it. He will see, from Genesis to Revelations, the current setting strong that way. There never was a government on the face of the earth but what permitted slavery. The purest sons of freedom in the Grecian republics, the citizens of Athens and Lacedsemon, all held slaves. On this principle, the nations of Europe are associated; it is the basis of the feudal system. But, suppose all this to have been wrong, let me ask the gentleman if it is good policy to bring forward a business at this moment likely to 
light up the flame of civil discord; for the people of the Southern States will resist one tyranny as soon as another. The other parts of the continent may bear them down by force of arms, but they will never suffer themselves to be divested of their property without a struggle. The gentleman says if he was a Federal judge he does not know to what length he would go in emancipating these people; but I believe his judgeship would be of short duration in Georgia, perhaps even the existence of such a judge might be in danger.

(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 2) Mr. Scott

PETITIONS AGAINST SLAVERY–Continued
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 12, 1790
MR. SCOTT.—I cannot entertain a doubt but the memorial is strictly agreeable to the Constitution; it respects a part of the duty particularly assigned to us by that instrument, and I hope we may be inclined to take it into consideration. We can, at present, lay our hands upon a small duty of ten dollars; I would take this, and if it is all we can do we must be content; but I am sorry that the framers of the Constitution did not go further and enable us to interdict the traffic entirely; for I look upon the slave trade to be one of the most abominable things on earth; and, if there was neither God nor devil, I should oppose it upon the principles of humanity and the law of nature. The petitioners view the subject in a religious light, but I do not stand in need of religious motives to induce me to reprobate the traffic in human flesh; other considerations weigh with me to support the commitment of the memorial, and to support every constitutional measure likely to bring about its total abolition. Perhaps, in our legislative capacity, we can go no further than to impose a duty of ten dollars, but I do not know how far I might go if I was one of the judges of the United States, and those people were to come before me and claim their emancipation; but I am sure I would go as far as I could.

(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 5) Mr. Tucker

PETITIONS AGAINST SLAVERY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 11, 1790
MR. TUCKER.—Congress has no authority, under the Constitution, to do more than lay a duty of ten dollars upon each person imported; and this is a political consideration, not arising from either religion or morality, and is the only principle upon which we can proceed to take it up. But what effect do these men suppose will arise from their exertions? Will a duty of ten dollars diminish the importation? Will the treatment be better than usual ? I apprehend not; nay, it may be worse, because an interference with the subject may excite a great degree of restlessness in the minds of those it is intended to serve, and that may be a cause for the masters to use more rigor toward them than they would otherwise exert; so that these men seem to overshoot their object. But if they will endeavor to procure the abolition of the slave trade, let them prefer their petitions to the State legislatures, who alone have the power of forbidding the importation. I believe their applications there would be improper; but if they are anywhere proper it is there. I look upon the address, then, to be ill judged, however good the intention of the framers.

The address was ordered to lie on the table.

(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 2) Mr. Stone

PETITIONS AGAINST SLAVERY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 11, 1790
MR. STONE feared that, if Congress took any measures indicative of an intention to interfere with the kind of property alluded to, it would sink it in value very considerably, and might be injurious to a great number of the citizens, particularly in the Southern States. He thought the subject was of general concern, and that the petitioners had no more right to interfere with it than any other members of the community. It was an unfortunate circumstance that it was the disposition of religious sects to imagine they understood the rights of human nature better than all the world besides; and that they would, in consequence, be meddling with concerns in which they had nothing to do. As the petition relates to a subject of a general nature, it ought to lie on the table as information. He would never consent to refer petitions, unless the petitioners were exclusively interested. Suppose there was a petition to come before us from a society praying us to be honest in our transactions, or that we should administer the Constitution according to its intent, what would you do with a petition of this kind? Certainly it would remain on your table. He would, however, not have it supposed that the people had not a right to advise and give their opinion upon public measures; but he would not be influenced by that advice or opinion to take up a subject sooner than the convenience of other business would admit.

(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.].