310

PETITIONS TO ABOLISH THE SLAVE TRADE.

that, because Virginia had her full complement of slaves already, she ought not to shut the doors until her neighbors were supplied. He added that there was as much need of legislating for the white slaves, imported from all the jails of Europe, as for the blacks. Negroes are better off in a state of slavery, anyway, he argued, and the freed negroes of Maryland had become pickpockets and petty larceny villains. The slaves, said he, were not worse off in America, where their comforts were attended to, than in Africa, where prisoners of war were sold and parents traded off their own offspring.* This tirade had the desired effect, and, after some further debate, Parker withdrew his motion.t

On February 11, 1790, during the second session of the First Congress, the Quakers of Pennsylvania, Delaware and other States, presented a petition to abolish the slave trade, and on the 12th Franklin, as President of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, sent in a memorial asking that Congress give serious consideration to the extension of freedom to negroes, and that Congress "step to the very verge of the power vested in you [it] for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our [their]

Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 159.
McMaster, vol. i., pp. 552-555.

Annals of Congress, 1st Congress, 2d session, vol. ii., p. 1182; Benton, Abriagment of Debates, vol. i., p. 201.

fellow-men."*

Franklin had pre

viously formulated a plan for improving the condition of the free blacks, in which" he advised a committee of twenty-four members to be divided into four sub-committees; one, to superintend the general conduct of the free negroes, and give advice, protection, and aid to such as needed them; another, to place out young negroes as apprentices; another, to provide schools for the free blacks; and another, to provide employment for adults."+

On March 17, after a report was received from the committee to which the petition was referred, the matter was taken up for debate, and was discussed at great length and with much spirit on both sides. All the foremost orators among the Georgia and South Carolina representatives — Smith, Jackson, Baldwin, Burke, and Tucker-participated in the debate, probably with a view to increasing their popularity among their constituents at home in the face of a new

election. They sought to have the House declare that the prayer for abolition was a prayer for unconstitutional action, and interspersed their arguments with taunts. Smith and

*Annals of Congress, p. 1187; Benton, vol. i., p. 207. Though the memorial was signed by Franklin, Curtis (Constitutional History, vol. ii., p. 235) doubts that he wrote it, as it contains a reading of the Constitution that he would hardly have incorporated himself, or even have adopted, had his attention been directed to it.

Parton, Life of Franklin, vol. ii., p. 604. For which see American State Papers, Mis cellaneous, vol. i., p. 12.

DEBATE ON ANTI-SLAVERY PETITION.

Jackson, after exhausting their arguments against the bill, fell to abusing the Quakers, their religion and their morals, denouncing them as British spies and enemies of freedom.* Even Franklin came in for his share of abuse.†

Madison said that "the true policy of the Southern members was to have let the affair proceed with as little noise as possible, and to have made use of the occasion to obtain, along with an assertion of the powers of Congress, a recognition of the restraints imposed by the Constitution." This in effect was done at the end, but not before two months had passed, during which the more violent of the Southern members rid their minds of their sentiments on the subject. So absurd were some of the arguments advanced that the longer

*Curtis (Constitutional History, vol. ii., pp. 239-243) gives a long extract from Smith's speech.

The last paper which Dr. Franklin wrote was
on the subject of slavery. "Mr. Jackson, a mem-
ber of Congress, from Georgia had made a speech
in favor of negro slavery. An ingenious parody
of this speech was composed by Dr. Franklin, in
which Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim is represented as
speaking, in the Divan of Algiers, against grant-
ing the petition of a sect called Erika, who prayed
for the abolition of piracy and slavery as being
unjust. In this pretended speech of Ibrahim, the
same principles were advanced, and the same argu-
ments were used in defence of plundering and en-
slaving Europeans, that had been urged by Mr.
Jackson, in justification of negro slavery. It is
dated only twenty-four days before the author's
decease; and, as a specimen of happy conception
and sound reasoning, it is not inferior to any of
his writings.”—Sparks, Life of Franklin, p. 527;
also Franklin's Works, vol. ii.,
pp. 517-521:
Weld, Life of Franklin, p. 539; Parton, Life of
Franklin, vol. ii., pp. 606-614.

Gay, Life of Madison, p. 162.
VOL. IV. -21

311

the subject was discussed, the more
widespread and earnest became the
opposition. As Madison said, if the
slave-holders had been wise they
would have remained silent regarding
the subject; but neither the hot-
headed Southerners nor those favor-
ing the abolition of slavery were will-
ing to drop the topic. The former
could not see the wisdom of "laying
low,
low," being sure that an exposure of
the true character of slavery would
result in its destruction, and that to
make a strenuous defence was to
court a still more determined opposi-
tion and consequent exposure. Far
from being conciliatory, the advo-
cates of slavery contended that a gen-
eral emancipation by law would never
be submitted to without a civil war;†
then they fell to abusing the Quakers,
attempting to show that the Bible not
only permitted slavery, but com-
mended it," from Genesis to Revela-
tion." They said that Christ had
permitted it and that the Apostles
had never preached against it; that
if slavery" were an evil it was one
for which there was no remedy," for
which reason the North had

ac

quiesced in it; and that a compromise was made on both sides -" we took each other with our mutual bad habits and respective evils for better, for worse; the Northern States adopted us with our slaves, and we adopted them with their Quakers." They *Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. i., pp. 201-202.

† Ibid, vol. i., p. 208.

Speech of Smith, March 17, Ibid, vol. i., p. 232.

312

DEBATE ON ANTI-SLAVERY PETITION.

declared further that the Quakers son, Page, and Parker joined forces were meddling with something that was none of their business and exciting the slaves to insurrection. Madison said, however, that the memorial of the Quakers was "well worthy of consideration" and, while he admitted that the slave trade could not be stopped for twenty years, he held that there was a variety of ways by which [Congress] could countenance the abolition, and regulations might be made in relation to the introduction [of slavery] into the new States to be formed out of the western territory."* Gerry said that Gerry said that the fact that we have a right to regulate this business is as clear as that we have any right whatever; nor has the contrary been shown by anybody who has spoken on the occasion." Computing the value of the slaves at $10,000,000, he said that Congress had the right " to purchase the whole of them, and their resources in the western territory might furnish them with the means,' but added that " he did not intend to suggest a measure of this kind; he only instanced these particulars to show that Congress certainly had a right to intermeddle in the business."†

66

Gerry, Sherman, and Sedgwick, of New England, Boudinot, Scott, and Hartley, of Pennsylvania, and Madi

*Annals of Congress, vol. ii., p. 1204; Benton, Abridgment, vol. i., p. 211.

† Annals of Congress, vol. ii., p. 1234; Gay, Life of Madison, pp. 156-168.

to secure decent respect for decent petitions. The committee had reported seven resolutions,* moderately expressed, and aimed, in the form of general propositions, to distinguish the lawful limitations upon Congressional action regarding the matter; for it was undeniable that, as concerned slavery, the Constitution left something to the discretion of Congress. On the anti-slavery side a few manly speeches were made, particularly by Scott, Vining, and Boudinot. The defence of the Quakers devolved chiefly upon Boudinot. He vindicated their patriotism at the time of the Revolution and brought to the attention of the House their humanity and kindness toward prisoners of war. The Georgia and South Carolina members fought the resolutions step by step, and finally the courage of the emancipators began to ooze out. Three of the resolutions denied to Congress the right to interfere with slavery in certain cases, and these were acceptable to the pro-slavery men; three others affirmed the right, within constitutional limitations, to tax and regulate the traffic in slaves; but the seventh-most objectionable resolution-promised, on behalf of the Union, to promote the humane objects of the memorials in every constitutional way. When the North Carolina delegation arrived,

*These are given in Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. ii., pp. 238-239; Annals of Congress, vol. ii., pp. 1414-1415.

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED; FUGITIVE SLAVE LAWS.

the pro-slavery men could muster sufficient strength to strike out this last resolution, together with the fourth, which asserted the right of Congress to levy a tax of $10 apiece on imported slaves. Ames would Ames would have dropped the subject then and there, but at Madison's suggestion the four resolutions finally adopted were entered upon the House Journal.* They read as follows:

"1. That the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, cannot be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808.

"2. That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the States, it remaining that the several States alone to provide any regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require.

"3. That Congress have authority to restrain

the citizens of the United States from carrying on the African trade for the purpose of supplying foreigners with slaves, and of providing, by proper regulations, for the humane treatment during their passage of slaves imported by the said citizens into the States admitting such importa

tion.

"4. That Congress have also authority to prohibit foreigners from fitting out vessels in any port of the United States for transporting persons from Africa to any foreign port."†

* Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 161-162. Annals of Congress, 1st Congress, pp. 14511474. The reports of the special committee and the Committee of the Whole are in Journal of the House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 2d session; MacDonald, Select Documents, pp. 58-60. The report of the special committee is in Annals of Congress, 1st Congress, 2d session, vol. ii., pp. 1414-1415; American State Papers Miscellaneous, vol. i., p. 12. On the entire subject, see also Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History, vol. i., pp. 89-94; Wilson, Rise and Fall of Slave Power, vol. i., pp. 61-67; W. F. Poole, Anti-Slavery Opinions before the Year 1800; J. C. Hurd, The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States; J. R. Brackett, The Negro in Maryland;

313

On February 5, 1793, a law for the extradition of fugitive slaves was passed by a vote of 48 to 7, and was signed by the President on February 12. It provided that a master or his agent might regain possession of a fugitive slave by taking him before a Federal judge or local magistrate, who, without a jury and by verbal testimony or affidavits, was to determine the question of ownership.† The circumstances leading to the enactment of this law deserve notice. A free negro had been kidnapped by three white men in Pennsylvania and taken to Virginia. The governor of Pennsylvania demanded the surrender of the kidnappers, but Virginia refused on the ground that there was no law carrying into effect the constitutional provision for the surrender of fugitives from justice. The governor of Pennsylvania submitted the facts to Washington, who brought them to the attention of Congress.t

Almost immediately after the second session of the Fifth Congress had assembled in November of 1797,

J. S. Bassett, History of Slavery in the State of North Carolina, in J. H. U. Studies, series xvii., nos. vii.-viii.; F. A. Ogg, Jay's Treaty and the Slavery Interests of the United States, in Report of the American Historical Association for 1901, p. 273; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. i., pp. 229-238.

*U. S. Statutes-at-Large, vol. i., p. 302; Annals of Congress, 2d Congress, 2d session, pp. 1414-1415, 860-861; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. i., p. 417.

Bassett, Federalist System, p. 189; Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History, vol. i., pp. 312-314.

‡ Rhodes, United States, vol. i., p. 24.

DEBATE ON FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.