MR. THACHER said the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Blount] is of the opinion that, these people being slaves, the House ought not to pay attention to their prayer. That the House should not receive a petition without an evidence to prove it was from a free man was quite a new system of conduct which he had never seen the House practice, and hoped he never should see. This was language which opposed the constitutional freedom of every State where the declaration of rights had been made; they all declare that every man is born equally free, and that each has an equal right to petition if aggrieved -this doctrine he never heard objected to.

The gentlemen from Virginia [Mr. Madison and Mr. Heath] had said it was a judicial and not a legislative question; they say the petition proves it, and that it ought not to be attended to. Mr. T. said he saw no proof whatever of the impropriety of the House receiving it. There might be some judicial question growing out of the case; but that was no reason, because it might possibly undergo a judicial course, that the general Government were not to be petitioned.

The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Smith] had said "that this was a kind of property on which the House could not legislate"; but he would answer this was a kind of property on which they were bound to legislate. The Fugitive Act could prove this authority; if petitions were not to be received, they would have to legislate in the dark. It appeared plainly that these men were manumitted by their masters; and because a number of men who called themselves legislators should, after they had the actual enjoyment of their liberty, come forward and say that these men should not remain at liberty, and actually authorize their recaptivity, he thought it exceedingly unjust to deprive them of the right of petitioning to have their injuries redressed. These were a set of men on whom the Fugitive Law had no power, and he thought they claimed protection under the power of that House, which always ought to lean toward freedom. Though they could not give freedom to slaves, yet he hoped gentlemen would never refuse to lend their aid to secure freemen in their rights against tyrannical imposition.

MR. MACON said no man wished to encourage petitions more than himself and no man had considered this subject more. These men could not receive any aid from the general Government, but by application to the State justice would be done. Trials of this kind had very frequently been brought on in all the different courts of that State, and had very often ended

in the freedom of slaves; the appeal was fair, and justice was done.

MR. VARNUM said the petitioners stated themselves to be freemen, and he did not see any opposition of force to convince the House they were not; surely it could not be said that color alone should designate them as slaves. He hoped the House would take all possible care that freemen should not be made slaves; to be deprived of liberty was more important than to be deprived of property. He could not think why gentlemen should be against having the fact examined; if it appears that they are slaves, the petition will of course be dismissed, but if it should appear they are free, and receive injury under the Fugitive Act, the United States ought to amend it so that justice should be done.

MR. KITCHELL said that the question was not now whether the petitioners are or are not slaves, but it is on a law of the United States. They assert that this law does act injuriously to them; the question is, therefore, whether a committee shall be appointed to inquire into the improper force of this law on the case of these men; if they are freemen, he said, they ought not to be sent back from the most distant part of the United States to North Carolina, to have justice done them, but they ought to receive it from the general Government who made the law they complain of.

On the question for receiving the petition being put, -it was negatived-ayes 33, noes 50.

Another petition relative to slavery was presented to the House on January 2, 1800, this time against the Fugitive Law and the slave trade, praying for their repeal. The petitioners were free negroes of Philadelphia, too ignorant to sign their names, affixing their marks instead, and therefore it was evident, said those opposed to receiving the memorial, that white Abolitionists were the real movers in the matter.

This debate is notable because it contains the first threat that the South would secede if the abolition agitation were continued. The maker of the threat was the fiery John Rutledge, Jr., of South Carolina. In his speech he referred to the San Domingo insurrection, which thereafter became a stock illustration of the proslavery orators.

THE SOUTH WILL PROTECT ITSELF

JOHN RUTLEDGE, Jr., M.C.

MR. RUTLEDGE thought it a little extraordinary that, when gentlemen from some parts of the Union were positively assured that very serious, nay, dreadful, effects must be the inevitable consequence of their discussion on this subject, they still would persist. He used strong words, he said, because no others would be appropriate. Gentlemen recommended the subject to be calmly argued. Would gentlemen feel calm if measures were taken to destroy most of their property? Would calmness be consistent if entering wedges were prepared to ruin the property of whole estates? Yes, we deem this as an entering wedge to an inevitable loss of our property, if persisted in.

Three emissaries from St. Domingo appeared in the hall of the French Convention, demanding the emancipation of their species from slavery. The convention were told it would operate as an entering wedge that would go to the destruction of property and the loss of one of the finest islands in the world; that it would be murderous in the extreme; that it would open scenes which had never been practiced since the destruction of Carthage; that a whole rich country would be buried in blood; that thousands would instantly be reduced to abject penury; that the first towns in that fine island would be reduced to a heap of ashes. But those gentlemen said no, it cannot be, all our desires originate in philanthropy-we wish to do good! But, sir, we have lived to see these dreadful scenes. These horrid effects have succeeded what was conceived once to be trifling.

Most important consequences may likewise be the result of the present anti-slavery agitation, although gentlemen little apprehend it. There have been Abolition emissaries among us in the Southern States; they have begun their war upon us; an actual organization has commenced; we have had them meeting in their club rooms and debating on that subject, and determinations have been made.

I recollect that gentlemen in France used arguments like the gentleman from Massachusetts [George Thacher]: "We can indemnify these proprietors." But how did they do it, or how can it be done? Not at all. Farther, we were told these things would take place, we need not be alarmed; it was inevitable; that it was reasonable and unavoidable. Sir, it never will take place. There is one alternative which will save us from it, but that

alternative I deprecate very much; that is, that we are able to take care of ourselves, and, if driven to it, we will take care of ourselves.

Samuel Goode [Va.] moved:

That the parts of the said petition which invite Congress to legislate upon subjects from which the general Government is precluded by the Constitution have a tendency to create disquiet and jealousy and ought, therefore, to receive no encouragement or countenance from this House.

The motion was adopted by a vote of-yeas 85, nay 1 [Mr. Thacher].

The question of entering into concert with foreign nations for a humanitarian purpose was brought forward in the Senate early in the session of 1817-1818 by a petition from the Society of Friends at Baltimore, asking that the Government adopt laws more effectually to prevent the slave trade from being carried on by citizens of the United States under foreign flags (Spanish and Portuguese), and also take measures, in concert with other nations (Great Britain in particular) to secure the entire abolition of the traffic.

Senator James Burrill, Jr., of Rhode Island, moved that the petition be referred to a committee to inquire into the expediency of the legislation and action which it proposed.

He was supported in his motion by Rufus King [N. Y.], David L. Morrill [N. H.]; the motion was opposed by George M. Troup [Ga.], George W. Campbell [Tenn.], and James Barbour [Va.].

The motion was debated on January 2 and 12, 1818, and carried by a vote of 17 to 16.

CONCERT WITH FOREIGN NATIONS TO SUPPRESS SLAVE TRADE

SENATE, JANUARY 2-12, 1818

SENATOR TROUP thought the petition a most extraordinary proposition, and asserted that, according to his apprehension, no measure could be adopted more replete with danger to the

welfare, to the very existence, of this country, than a formal coalition, for any purposes, with any foreign nation whatever. It was a policy, a resort to which ought always to be resisted. He was ready to go as far as anyone in enforcing, within our own jurisdiction, the abolition of the African slave trade, but to direct the President to enter into any compact or concert for this subject with any foreign nation or individuals was a step he would never consent to. He could not separate from foreign alliances the idea of foreign politics and foreign wars; and the proposed measure he should view as the commencement of a system of foreign connections tending to foreign alliances, to which Mr. T. expressed great repugnance.

SENATOR BURRILL entirely agreed to the impolicy of foreign alliances, but he could not view the proposed concert in this light, nor could he conceive that any such disastrous consequences would follow it as had been anticipated by the gentleman from Georgia. Nor was the principle of the proposed concert a novelty in this country. By referring to the treaty of Ghent it would be found that our ministers had either made or received overtures on this very subject, and a provision was in consequence inserted in the treaty.1 The concert had been considered as indispensable to bring about the entire abolition of the slave trade; and, Mr. B. said, it had been found impossible to put an entire stop to it without a coöperation among the nations prohibiting it; for, no matter how many nations prohibit the trade, if one or two are allowed to carry it on, the evil will still exist.

SENATOR KING said it was the boast of this nation that it had the reputation of having been the first to begin the abolition of the African slave trade. The example of this country had excited the emulation of other nations, and all of them having any connection with this trade, except Spain and Portugal, had come into the measures for its abolition. Those two had taken time for further consideration, and so long as their decision was suspended the regulations of other nations would be inefficient; an entire abolition of the traffic in slaves would never be effected until all united to suppress it. So long as Spain or Portugal permitted this trade, and so long as any of our own people, to their disgrace, continued to pursue it under those flags, it was necessary to the honor and the interest of this country to concur in any proper measures for its suppression. He could not perceive, he said, how such a measure as this motion looked to could lead to any such entangling con'See Vol. II, page 219.