CHAPTER I

THE SLAVE TRADE

[DEBATES ON EARLY ABOLITIONIST PETITIONS]

Memorial by Quakers Against the Slave Trade: Debate on Its Reference to Committee; in Favor, Thomas Fitzsimons [Pa.], James Madison [Va.], Thomas Hartley [Pa.], Roger Sherman [Conn.]; Opposed, Michael J. Stone [Md.], James Jackson [Ga.], William L. Smith [S. C.], Thomas T. Tucker [S. C.]; Memorial Is Laid on the Table-Memorial by the Pennsylvania Abolition Society Against Slavery: Debate on Its Reference to Committee; in Favor, John Page [Va.], Thomas Scott [Pa.], Madison, Elbridge Gerry [Mass.]; Opposed, Tucker, Ædamus Burke [8. C.], Jackson, Abraham Baldwin [Ga.], Smith-Memorials Are Referred to Committee-Report of Committee-Debate on Its Amendment: Those in Favor of Original Report Indicating Sympathy with Petitioners, Hartley and Elias Boudinot [N. J.]; Those in Favor of Striking Out These Sympathetic Clauses, Alexander White [Va.], Burke, and Smith-Report Is so Amended-The Fugitive Slave Law of 1792: Debate in 1797 on a Petition of Free Negroes Against Its Operation in Their Case; in Favor of the Petition, John Swanwick [Pa.], George Thacher [Mass.], Samuel Sitgreaves [Pa.], Joseph B. Varnum [Mass.]; Opposed, Thomas Blount [N. C.], John Heath [Va.], Madison, Smith, Nathaniel Macon [N. C.]-Speech of John Rutledge, Jr. [S. C.], Against Accepting a Petition of Negroes Against Slavery: "The South Will Protect Itself''-Petition to Congress by Quakers to Coöperate with Foreign Nations in Suppressing the Slave Trade-Debate in the Senate on the Petition: in Favor, James Burrill [R. I.], Rufus King [N. Y.], David L. Morrill [N. H.]; Opposed, George M. Troup [Ga.], George W. Campbell [Tenn.], James Barbour [Va.]-Later History of the Suppression of the Traffic.

T

HAT the questions connected with slavery had not been settled by the compromises on the subject in the Constitution [see Chapter xiii, Vol. I] 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

7

Friends (Quakers) in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and western parts of Maryland and Virginia praying:

That Congress might make "a 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,

66

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 coöperating 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.].

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.

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.

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.

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 be 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.

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.

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