The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade/Chapter 24
CHAPTER XXIV.
Political History of Slavery in the United States from 1189 to 1800.
The first session of the new Congress was held in the city of New York in 1789. A quorum was obtained for business on the 6th of April. A tariff bill having been reported, and being under discussion in the house on the question of its second reading, Parker, of Virginia, moved to insert a clause imposing a duty of ten dollars on every slave imported. "He was sorry the constitution prevented Congress from prohibiting the importation altogether. It was contrary to revolution principles, and ought not to be permitted." The only state which seemed to have a direct pecuniary interest in this question was Georgia. In all the other states at present represented on the floor, the importation of slaves, whether from Africa or elsewhere, was prohibited. Even South Carolina, just before the meeting of the federal convention, had passed an act, as she had been accustomed to do occasionally in colonial times, when the prices of produce were too low to be remunerative, prohibiting, for one year, the importation of slaves — a prohibition since renewed for three years. But, notwithstanding this temporary prohibition, the same jealousy as to her right of importation, so strongly manifested in the federal convention, was now exhibited on the floor of the house. Smith, the representative from the Charleston district, "hoped that such an important and serious proposition would not be hastily adopted. It was rather a late moment for the first introduction of a subject so big with serious consequences. No one topic had been yet introduced so important to South Carolina and the welfare of the Union." Sherman, of Connecticut, threw out some suggestions similar to those he had offered in the federal convention. He "approved the object of the motion, but did not think it a fit subject to be embraced in this bill. He could not reconcile himself to the insertion of human beings, as a subject of impost, among goods, wares, and merchandise. He hoped the motion would be withdrawn for the present, and taken up afterwards as an independent subject."
Jackson, of Georgia, "was not surprised, however others might be so, at the quarter whence this motion came. Virginia, an old settled, state, had her complement of slaves, and the natural increase being sufficient for her purpose, she was careless of recruiting her numbers by importation. But gentlemen ought to let their neighbors get supplied before they imposed such a burden. He knew this business was viewed in an odious light at the eastward, because the people there were capable of doing their own work, and had no occasion for slaves. But gentlemen ought to have some feeling for others. Surely they do not mean to tax us for every comfort and enjoyment of life, and, at the same time, to take from us the means of procuring them! He was sure, from the unsuitableness of the motion to the businsss now before the house, and the want of time to consider it, the gentleman's candor would induce him to withdraw it. Should it ever be brought forward again, he hoped it would comprehend the white slaves as well as the black, imported from all the jails of Europe; wretches convicted of the most flagrant crimes, who were brought in and sold without any duty whatever. They ought to be taxed equally with Africans, and he had no doubt of the equal constitutionality and propriety of such a course."
In reply to the suggestions of Sherman, Jackson, and others, Parker declared "that, having introduced the motion on mature reflection, he did not like to withdraw it. The gentleman from Connecticut had said that human beings ought not to be enumerated with goods, wares, and merchandise. Yet he believed they were looked upon by African traders in that light. He hoped congress would do all in their power to restore to human nature its inherent privileges; to wipe off, if possible, the stigma under which America labored; to do away the inconsistency in our principles justly charged upon us; and to show, by our actions, the pure beneficence of the doctrine held out to the world in our Declaration of Independence."
Sherman still "thought the principles of the bill and the principles of the motion inconsistent. The principle of the bill was to raise revenue; it was the principle of the motion to correct a moral evil. Considering the proposed duty as having revenue for its object, it would be unjust, because two or three states would bear the burden. He should therefore vote against the present motion, though he had no objection to taking up the subject by itself on the principles of humanity and policy." Ames, of Massachusetts, "detested slavery from his soul; but he had some doubts whether imposing a duty on their importation would not have an appearance of countenancing the practice." "It is the fashion of the day," said Jackson, "to favor the liberty of slaves. He believed them better off as they were, and better off than they had been in Africa. Experience had shown that liberated slaves would not work for a living. Thrown upon the world without property or connections, they can not live but by pilfering. Will Virginia set her negroes free? When the practice comes to be tried there, the sound of liberty will lose those charms which make it grateful to the ravished ear."
Madison supported Parker's motion in an elaborate speech, in which he replied to all the various objections urged against it. "The confounding men with merchandise might be easily avoided by altering; the title of the bill; it was, in fart, the very object of the motion to prevent men, so far as the power of congress extended, from being confounded with merchandise. The clause in the constitution allowing a tax to be imposed, though the traffic could not be prohibited for twenty years, was inserted, he believed, for the very purpose of enabling congress to give some testimony of the sense of America with respect to the African trade. By expressing a national disapprobation of that trade, it is to be hoped we may destroy it, and so save ourselves from reproaches, and our posterity from the imbecility ever attendant on a country filled with slaves. This was as much the interest of South Carolina and Georgia as of any other states. Every addition they received to their number of slaves tended to weakness, and rendered them less capable of self-defense. In case of hostilities with foreign nations, their slave population would be a means, not of repelling invasions, but of inviting attack. It was the duty of the general government to protect every part of the Union against danger, as well internal as external. Every thing, therefore, which tended to increase this danger, though it might be a local affair, yet, if it involved national expense or safety, became of concern to every part of the Union, and a proper subject for the consideration of those charged with the general administration of the government." Bland was equally decided with Madison and Parker in support of the motion. Burke, of South Carolina, suggested that gentlemen were contending about nothing; for if not particularly mentioned, slaves would still fall under the general five per cent, ad valorem duty on all unenumerated articles, a duty just about equivalent to the one proposed. Madison replied that no collector of the customs would presume to apply the terms goods, wares, and merchandise to persons; and in this he was supported by Sherman, who denied that persons were recognized any where in the constitution as property. He thought that the clause in the constitution on which the present motion was founded applied as much to other persons as to slaves, and that there were other persons to whom it ought to be applied, as convicts, for instance; but the whole subject ought to be taken up by itself. Finally, upon Madison's suggestion, Parker consented to withdraw his motion, with the understanding that a separate bill should be brought in. A committee was appointed for that purpose; but there the matter was suffered to rest.
At the next session, 1790, the House became involved in an exciting discussion in reference to slavery and the slave-trade. Slavery still existed in every state of the Union except in Massachusetts. A clause in the constitution of that state, declaring all men to be born free and equal, inserted for the express purpose of tacitly abolishing slavery, had been judicially decided (1783) to have that effect. A few months previously to the final adoption of the constitution of Massachusetts, the state of Pennsylvania had passed an act (1780) introducing a system of gradual emancipation, prohibiting the further importation of slaves, (and by a subsequent act their exportation,) and assuring freedom to all persons thereafter born in that state, or brought into it, except runaways from other states and the servants of travelers and others not remaining above six months. This Pennsylvania system of gradual emancipation had been imitated in the states of Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Hampshire. The other eight states retained their old colonial slave-holding systems. But New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia had prohibited the further importation of slaves, and in Virginia and Maryland the old colonial restrictions on emancipation had been repealed, leaving thereby full play, and not without considerable results, to the conscience and generosity of the slave-holders. Jefferson and Wythe, as commissioners to revise the statute law of Virginia, had agreed upon a bill for gradual emancipation; but when the revision of the statutes came before the House of Delegates (1785), Jefferson was absent as minister at Paris, those who shared his opinions thought that the favorable moment had not arrived, and the bill was not brought forward. Even in New York, an attempt (1785) to pass an act for the gradual abolition of slavery had failed to succeed. Yet in all the states, from North Carolina northward, warm opponents of slavery and ardent advocates for emancipation were more or less numerous, including many distinguished citizens. Influenced, perhaps, by the sarcasms thrown out in the federal convention, Rhode Island, shortly after the adjournment of that body, had passed a law (Oct., 1187) forbidding its citizens to engage in the slave-trade. The kidnapping of three colored persons at Boston, enticed on board a vessel and carried to the West Indies, where they were sold as slaves, produced a great excitement in Massachusetts, and occasioned (1788) a similar prohibitory act there — an example speedily imitated by Connecticut and Pennsylvania. But as the federal constitution gave to congress the exclusive regulation of commerce, it had become very questionable whether these laws retained any force.
Nor was the opposition to slavery confined to legislative acts alone. The united synod of New York and Philadelphia, while constituting themselves as the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, had issued a pastoral letter (1788), in which they strongly recommended the abolition of slavery and the instruction of the negroes in letters and religion. The Methodist Episcopal Church, lately introduced and rapidly increasing, especially in Maryland and Virginia, had even gone so far as to disqualify slave-holders to be members of their communion. Coke, the first bishop, was exceedingly zealous on this subject; but the rule was afterwards relaxed. In consequence of the efforts and preaching of Woolman and others, opposition to slavery had come to be a settled tenet of the Quakers.
The same opinions had been taken up as matters of humanity and policy as well as of religion. A society "for promoting the abolition of slavery, for the relief of free negroes unlawfully held in bondage, and for improving the condition of the African race," had been organized in Philadelphia (1787), of which Franklin was president, and Dr. Rush and Tench Coxe secretaries. A similar society had been formed in New York, of which Jay was an active member; and this example already had been or soon was imitated in all the states form Virginia northward.[1] A petition from the yearly meeting of the Quakers of Pennsylvania and Delaware, seconded by another from the Quakers of New York, had been laid before the House, in which it was suggested whether, notwithstanding "seeming impediments," occasioned by "the influence and artifice of particular persons, governed by the narrow, mistaken views of self-interest," it was not within the power of congress "to exercise justice and mercy, which, if adhered to," the petitioners could not doubt, "must produce the abolition of the slavetrade."
Hartley moved the reference of this memorial to a special committee. Supported by Madison and his colleagues, Parker, Page, and White, by Lawrence, Sedgwick, Boudinot, Sherman, and Gerry, this motion was violently opposed by Smith of South Carolina, Jackson, Tucker, Baldwin, and Burke, not without many sneers at "the men in the gallery" — the Quaker deputation appointed to look after the petition — "who had come here to meddle in a business with which they had nothing to do." Finally, on a suggestion of Clymer's, supported by one of the rules of the House, the memorial was suffered to lie over till the next day.
At the opening of the session that next day, Feb. 12, another petition was presented relating to the same subject, coming from the Pennsylvania society for the abolition of slavery. It was signed by Franklin as president — one of the last public acts of his long and diversified career. He died within a few weeks afterward. "That mankind," said this memorial, "are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of happiness, the Christian religion teaches us to believe, and the political creed of Americans fully coincides with that position. Your memorialists, particularly engaged in attending to the distresses arising from slavery, believe it their indispensable duty to present this subject to your notice. They have observed, with real satisfaction, that many important and salutary powers are vested in you for promoting the welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to the people of the United States; and as they conceive that these blessings ought rightfully to be administered, without distinctions of color, to all descriptions of people, so they indulge themselves in the pleasing anticipation that nothing which can be done for the relief of the unhappy objects of their care will be either omitted or delayed.
"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 the constitution, your memorialists conceive themselves bound to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen the bonds 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 freemen, 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 fellow-men."
Immediately after the reading of this petition, which could not have much tended to soothe the excitement of the day before, Hartley called up the Quaker memorial, and moved its commitment. In opposition to this motion, Tucker and Burke took the ground that the memorial contained an unconstitutional request, as congress had no power to meddle with the slave-trade for twenty years to come. Tucker pronounced it "a mischievous attempt, an improper interference, at the best, an act of imprudence." Burke was certain chat the commitment "would sound an alarm and blow the trumpet of sedition through the southern states."
"I cannot entertain a doubt," said Scott of Pa., in reply, "that the memorial is strictly agreeable to the constitution. It respects a part of the duty particularly assigned to us by that instrument. We can at present lay our hands on a small tax of ten dollars. I would take that; and if that is all we can do, we must be content. I am sorry the framers of the constitution did not go further, and enable us to interdict the slave-trade altogether, for I look upon it to be one of the most abominable things on earth; and if there were neither God nor devil, I should oppose it on principles of humanity and the law of nature. For my part, I cannot conceive how any person can be said to acquire a property in another. The petitioners view the subject in a religious light; but I stand not in need of religious motives to induce me to reprobate the traffic in human flesh. 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 these people were to come before me and claim their emancipation. I am sure I would go as far as I could." Jackson maintained, in reply, "the qualified property of the master in his slaves;" he referred to the example of the republics of antiquity; and relied "on the whole current of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelations," as proving that religion was not against slavery.
Sherman "could see no difficulty in committing the memorial. It was probable the committee would understand their business, and perhaps they might bring in such a report as would be satisfactory to gentlemen on both sides of the House." Baldwin "was sorry that a subject of so delicate a nature, as respected some of the states, had been brought before congress. Such gentlemen as had been present at the formation of the constitution could not but recollect the pain and difficulty which this subject had then occasioned. So tender were the southern members on this point, that the convention had wellnigh broken up without coming to any determination. From extreme desire to preserve the Union and to establish an efficient government, mutual concessions had resulted, concessions which the constitution had jealously guarded. The moment we go to jostle on that ground, I fear we shall feel it tremble under our feet, The clause in the constitution, that no capitation or direct tax should be laid, except in proportion to the census, was intended to prevent congress from laying any special tax upon slaves, lest they might in that way bo burden the owners as to bring about a general emancipation. Gentlemen have said that this petition does not pray for the abolition of the slave-trade; I think, sir, it prays for nothing else, and that, consequently, we have nothing more to do with it, than if it prayed us to establish an order of nobility or a national religion."
The same ground, the unconstitutionality of the object prayed for, was relied upon by Smith of South Carolina, as a reason for not committing the memorial. "Notwithstanding all the calmness with which some gentlemen have viewed the subject, they will find that the mere discussion of it will create alarm. We have been told that, if so, we should have avoided discussion by saying nothing. But it was not for that purpose we were sent here. We look upon this measure as an attack upon property; it is, therefore, our duty to oppose it by every means in our power. When we entered into a political connection with the other states, this property was there. It had been acquired under a former government conformably to the laws and constitution, and every attempt to deprive us of it must be in the nature of an ex post facto law, and, as such, forbidden by our political compact." Like the other speakers on that side, Smith indulged in a good many slurs on the Quakers. "His constituents wanted no lessons in religion and morality, and least of all from such teachers." Madison, Page, Gerry, and Boudinot advocated the commitment, As to the alarm which it was said would be produced by committing the memorial, Page thought there might be greater ground for alarm should they refuse to commit it. "Placing himself in the case of a slave, on hearing that congress had refused to listen to the decent suggestions of a respectable part of the community, he should infer that the general government, from which great good was expected to every class, had shut their ears against the voice of humanity. If anything could induce him to rebel, it must be a stroke like this, impressing on his mind all the horrors of despair. Were he told, on the other hand, that application was made in his behalf, and that congress were willing to hear what could be urged in favor of discouraging the importation of his fellow-wretches, he would still trust in their justice and humanity, and patiently await their decision. Presuming that these unfortunate people would reason in the same way, he thought that to commit the petition was the likeliest means to avert danger. He lived in a state which had the misfortune to have in her bosom a great number of slaves. He held many himself, and was, he believed, as much interested in the business as any gentleman in South Carolina or Georgia. Even were he determined to hold them in eternal bondage, he should feel no uneasiness at the reference of the memorial, relying on the virtue of congress, and their disinclination to exercise any unconstitutional power." "Though congress were restricted by the constitution from immediately abolishing the slave-trade, yet there were a variety of ways," so Madison remarked, "by which they might countenance the abolition of that traffic. They might, for example, respecting the introduction of slaves into the new states to be formed out of the western territory, make regulations such as were beyond their power in relation to the old settled states, an object which he thought well worthy of consideration."
Gerry "never contemplated this subject without reflecting what his own feelings would be were himself, his children, or his friends placed in the same deplorable circumstances. He thought the subject-matter of the memorial clearly within the powers of congress They had the power to lay at once a duty of ten dollars per head on imported slaves. They had the right, if they saw proper, to propose to the southern states to purchase the whole of their slaves, and their resources in the western territory might furnish them with the means. He did not intend to propose any scheme of that kind, but only referred to it, to show that congress had a right to deal with the matter."
The question being taken by yeas and nays, the reference was carried, forty-three to eleven. Of these eleven, six were from Georgia and South Carolina, being all the members present from those two states, two were from Virginia, two from Maryland, and one from New York. North Carolina was not yet represented.
The special committee to whom the memorial was referred, consisting of one member from each of the following states, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, after a month's delay, brought in a report consisting of seven resolutions: 1st. That the general government was expressly restrained, until the year 1808, from prohibiting the importation of any persons whom any of the existing states might till that time think proper to admit. 2d. That, by a fair construction of the constitution, congress was equally restrained from interfering to emancipate slaves within the states, such slaves having been born there, or having been imported within the period mentioned. 3d. That congress had no power to interfere in the internal regulation of particular states relative to the instruction of slaves in the principles of morality and religion, to their comfortable clothing, accommodation, and subsistence, to the regulation of marriages or the violation of marital rights, to the separation of children and parents, to a comfortable provision in cases of age or infirmity, or to the seizure, transportation, and sale of free negroes; but entertained the fullest confidence in the wisdom and humanity of the state legislatures that, from time to time, they would revise their laws, and promote these and all other measures tending to the happiness of the slaves. The fourth asserted that congress had authority to levy a tax of ten dollars, should they see fit to exact it, upon every person imported under the special permission of any of the states. The fifth declared the authority of congress to interdict or to regulate the African slave-trade, so far as it might be carried on by citizens of the United States for the supply of foreign countries, and also to provide for the humane treatment of slaves while on their passage to any ports of the United States into which they might be admitted. The sixth asserted the right of congress to prohibit foreigners from fitting out vessels in the United States to be employed in the supply of foreign countries with slaves from Africa. The seventh expressed an intention on the part of congress to exercise their authority to its full extent to promote the humane objects aimed at in the Quakers' memorial.
After a warm speech against the injustice and unconstitutionality of meddling with the question of slavery in any shape, Tucker moved to strike out the whole report, and substitute for it a simple resolution, refusing to take the memorial into consideration "as unconstitutional, and tending to injure some of the states of the Union." Jackson seconded the motion in a speech equally warm, to which Vining replied. But this motion of Tucker's, after a good deal of time spent upon that point, was declared out of order.
White, of Virginia, moved to strike out the first resolution, as containing a definition of the powers of congress, a subject not referred to the committee. His colleague, Moore, passing by the report, attacked the memorial and its authors, accusing the Quakers of harboring runaway slaves. He hoped emancipation would take place at a proper time, but he wished to have it brought about by other means than by the influence of people who had been inimical to independence. Burke was not au advocate for slavery, but he wished to preserve the tranquility of the Union, which this unnecessary and impolitic measure bade fair to throw into a state of confusion. The memorial was a reflection on the southern states. The negroes there lived better and in more comfortable houses than the poor of Europe. He referred to an advertisement which he had lately seen in a New York paper of a woman and child to be sold. That, he declared, was a species of cruelty unknown in the southern states. There the negroes have property, horses, cattle, hogs, and furniture. With respect to their ceremony of marriage, they took each other from love and friendship. Though eastern gentlemen expressed so great an antipathy to this species of property, many of them who settled in the south became as fond of it as any others — a fling to which Gerry subsequently replied that the eastern states could not be held responsible for the misdoings of their emigrant citizens, since it was no uncommon thing, even in the animal world, for exotics to degenerate.
Smith, of South Carolina, exerted his utmost efforts in an elaborate defense of slavery and the slave-trade, the objections to which he considered to spring from "misguided and misinformed humanity." The southern states required slaves to cultivate their lands, which could not be done by white people. A white laborer from the northern states asks two dollars per day when employed in any of the southern states. The low countries, in which rice and indigo are cultivated, would be deserted if emancipation took place; and what would then become of the revenue? To 6et the slaves loose would be a curse to them. A plan had been thought of in Virginia of shipping them off as soon as they were freed, and this was called humanity! Jefferson's scheme for gradual emancipation, as set forth in his Notes upon Virginia, was derided as impracticable. Emancipation would probably result in an exterminating war. If, on the other hand, a mixture of blood should take place, we should all be mulattoes! The very advocates of manumission held the blacks in contempt, and refused to associate with them. No scheme could be devised to stop the increase of the blacks, except a law to prevent the intercourse of the sexes, or Herod's scheme of patting the children to death. The toleration of slavery was said to bring down reproach upon America, but that reproach belongs only to those who tolerate it, and he was ready to bear his share. It was said, also, that slavery vitiates and debases the mind of the slave-holder; but where is the proof? Do the citizens of the south exhibit more ferocity in their manners, more barbarity in their dispositions, than those of the other states? Slavery was first introduced into the West Indies by Las Casas from motives of humanity. The French promote the slave-trade by premiums; and are not the French a polished people, sensible of the rights of mankind, and actuated by just sentiments? The Spaniards encourage slavery, and they are people of the nicest honor, proverbially so. The Greeks and Romans held slaves, and are not their glorious achievements still held up as incitements to great and magnanimous actions? Sparta teemed with slaves at the time of her greatest fame as a valiant republic. Much had been said of the cruel treatment of slaves in the southern states and the West Indies. As to the southern states, from experience and information, he denied the fact; he believed in his conscience that the slaves in South Carolina were a happier people than the lower order of whites in many countries he had visited. As to the West Indies, Lord Rodney and Admiral Barrington, both of whom had spent some time there, had lately declared in the house of commons that they had never heard of a negro being cruelly treated, and that they should rejoice exceedingly if the English day-laborers were half as happy.
The abolition of the slave-trade would cause an African massacre, for it was well known to be the custom to put to death all such slaves as were brought to the coast and not sold. The cruelty of the method of transportation was alleged as a motive for abolishing the traffic; but surely the merchants would so far attend to their own interests as to preserve the lives and health of the slaves on the passage. All voyages must be attended with inconveniences, and those from Africa to America not less than others. The confinement on board was no more than was necessary. The space allowed was more than to soldiers in a camp; for the cubical measurement of air breathed by encamped soldiers fell below that allowed in the slave-ships, in the ratio of seventeen to thirty.
Baldwin "was in hopes that the experience of the house had convinced them of the impropriety of entering at all on this business. It was a reckless wandering without guidance, and the longer it was continued, the more inextricable their perplexities would become. The same memorial, he was informed, had been presented to the senate, but they had taken no notice of it. They had even negatived a motion that it should lie upon the table; they would not blot their paper with the subject at all. He hoped this house would imitate the wisdom of the senate, and pursue the subject no further. The most important business of the Union, the plan for the support of the public credit, the division of North Carolina into collection districts, the post-office act, additional revenue act, on which nearly half the resources of the year depended, were all pressing for early attention, and had all been laid aside as of no account, had all been made to yield to this report. And yet no bill was brought forward to be enacted into a law; nothing but a string of propositions in exposition of different articles of the constitution, but which, in fact, concluded nothing.
"Another reason fir pawning this business no further was the influence it manifestly had on the temper of the members. For several days the house had been in a constant storm. This subject contained materials of the most combustible character; it had always been among the most contentious in the government of the country. In different parts of the Union there was a well known clashing of feelings and interests on this subject. It was long a doubt whether it would not form an insuperable bar to our union as one people, under one government. In the constitution that difficulty had been surmounted, and, so far as he had been informed, almost to universal satisfaction. The strength and violence of majority had been expected on this subject; and as it was not unknown on which side the majority was, security against it was settled deep among the pillars of the government. He had not felt the least alarm that the rights of his constituents would be disturbed. The house, from its constitution, would be in some respects a mirror to reflect all the passions of the people. It was wise that the feelings of the people should have an opportunity to bear a part in legislation; and, though sometimes inconvenient, it would not be dangerous, since there was another branch of the legislature whose concurrence was necessary in all public measures. From the manner in which that body was constituted, and from the experience already had, he doubted not the senate would give to our government that wisdom and firmness which otherwise it would not possess. Acts of congress must also have the approbation of the man whom the people, in the remotest regions of the country, regard as their father. After all, should there be any doubt of the constitutionality of the measures of congress, they cannot be carried into effect without the approval of the supreme court of the United States, composed of six of our most venerable sages, forming one of the most respectable courts upon earth, possessing our confidence as well from the independence of their position as from the long experience we have had of their wisdom. On this, as on all other occasions, he should see the effects of majority and of public passion on this subject totally unconcerned. The uproar of contending waves was not pleasant, but they were dashing against a rock."
This speech of Baldwin's was on a motion of Benson's, which Baldwin had seconded, to recommit the report, with a view to give the whole matter the goby. But the majority were not thus to be driven from their purpose. The motion to recommit was voted down, and the report was then taken up article by article. The three first resolutions (those relating to the power of congress over slavery in the states) were adopted, the second and third being compressed into one, dropping the somewhat offensive details, but retaining the substance. Upon the fourth resolution — that relating to the ten dollar tax on slaves imported — the struggle was renewed. Tucker moved to strike it out, in which he was supported by Baldwin, apparently on the ground that the resolution did not fairly express the sense of the constitution. Hartley took this occasion to defend the committee against some strictures of Burke's; but Burke still insisted that every clause in the report was drawn in ambiguous words, so as to involve in some measure such an interpretation as the Quakers wished. He acquitted the committee of any bad intention; yet he could not but think that, throughout the whole business, the southern members had been very hardly dealt by. The demand of the Quakers, as iniquitous as it was impolitic, had been referred to a committee. The southern members dragged, as it were, in spite of their remonstrances, to the bar of the house, had been set to defend their reputation and property against the Quakers, for whose right to offer such petitions gentlemen had strenuously contended. He hoped not to be out of order in offering another remark. The southern states were able to defend, and he hoped would defend, their property. No doubt those states would pass laws punishing as incendiaries any Quakers or others who should be found exciting their domestics to conspiracies or inusurrections.
Page, of Virginia, was in favor of the ten dollar duty, not only as a propel regulation of commerce, but to show that congress, as far as lies in their power, were disposed to discourage a shameful traffic. He was willing, however, to strike out the resolution, and that for two reasons. Without any such resolution, congress would still have the power to lay the tax. Should the power be asserted, and then the tax not be laid, it would look too much like temporizing, like seeming to yield to the demand of the Quakers, while in heart the house was still as much against it as those by whom the Quakers and their memorial had been so heartily abused.
Smith, of South Carolina, believed that the committee had been desirous so to frame this report as to please all parties. Some clauses were meant to allay the fears of the southern members, others were calculated to gratify the memorialists. The clause now under consideration seemed to be intended for that purpose; yet he was persuaded it would not be agreeable to the Quakers. Their nice feelings would not be gratified by a tax of this kind, the imposition of which would make slaves an article of commerce. He and his colleagues had been censured for making this business so serious. But was it reasonable to require them to give up the right fo be heard? Had the southern members been silent on this occasion, and not expressed themselves as they had done, they would have betrayed the charge intrusted to them.
On the question of striking out the fourth resolution, the committee was equally divided, but the motion was carried by the casting vote of Benson, the chairman.
The fifth resolution, affirming the power of congress to regulate the slave-trade, was vehemently opposed by Jackson, Tucker, and Smith, as was also a modification of it offered by Madison. It was said that, under pretense of regulating the trade, congress might, in fact, prohibit it entirely. They might insist, for instance, on such expensive accommodations and such costly provisions as would deter merchants from engaging in it. They might prohibit vessels of less than six hundred tons burden to engage in the traffic, whereas no vessel of that size could get across Charleston bar.
The patience of some of the northern members began at length to give way. Vining, of Delaware, thought the southern gentlemen ought to be satisfied with the alterations already made to please them. Some respect was due to the committee which had framed the report, and to the prevailing sentiment of the country. All the states, from Virginia to New Hampshire) had passed laws against the slave-trade. He entered also into a defense of the Quakers, many of whom were still present in the gallery, and whose treatment, by several gentlemen, he thought cruel and unjustifiable. Baldwin thought the regulation of the slave-trade had better be left to the states that tolerate it. He insinuated some doubts, though he would not venture to express a decided opinion, how far the power to regulate commerce gave to congress the right to pursue an individual citizen in his business between one foreign nation and another. Tucker pushed this argument to a much greater extent, denying the right of congress over citizens trading out of their jurisdiction, any further than to deprive vessels so employed of their American character. But, in spite of all the objections urged against it, the resolution, as modified by Madison, was adopted.
On the sixth resolution, that relating to the foreign slave-trade carried on from ports of the United States, Scott made an elaborate speech. "This was a subject," he remarked, "which had agitated the minds of most civilized nations for a number of years, and therefore what was said, and more particularly what was done in congress at this time, would, in some degree, form the political character of America' on the subject of slavery.
"Most of the arguments advanced had gone against the emancipation of such as were slaves already. But that question was not before the committee. The report under consideration involves no such idea. It was granted on all hands that congress have no authority to intermeddle in that business. I believe that the several states with whom that authority really rests will, from time to time, make such advances in the premises as justice to the master and slave, the dictates of humanity and sound policy, and the state of society will require or admit, and here I rest content.
"An advocate for slavery in its fullest latitude, in this age of the world, and on the floor of the American congress too, seems to me a phenomenon in politics. Yet such advocates have appeared, and many argumentative statements have been urged, to which I will only answer by calling on those who heard them to believe them if they can. With me they defy, yea, mock all belief."
But while conceding that slavery within the states was out of the constitutional reach of congress, Scott was not inclined to admit any limitation to the power of that body over the importation of slaves from abroad. "The clause relative to the free migration or importation, until 1808, of such persons as any of the states might see proper to admit, had indeed been urged as intended to cover this very case of the slave-trade, and the 'persons' referred to in that clause were said to be slaves. He could not think it satisfactory to be told that there was an understanding on this subject between the northern and southern members of the national convention. He trusted there was no trafficking in the convention. When considering our constitutional powers, we must judge of them by the face of the instrument under which we sit, and not by the certain understandings which the framers of that instrument may be supposed to have had with each other, but which never transpired. At any rate, the constitution was not obligatory until ratified by a certain number of state conventions, which can not be supposed to have been acquainted with the understanding in the national convention, but must be taken to have ratified the constitution on its own merits, as they appear on the face of the instrument. He had the honor of a seat in one of those conventions, and gave his assent to the constitution on those principles. He did then, he did now, and he ever should, judge of the powers of congress by the words of the constitution, with as much latitude as if it were a thousand years old, and every man in the convention that framed it long since in his grave.
"I acknowledge," he added, "that by this clause of the constitution congress is denied the power of prohibiting, for a limited period, the importation or migration of persons, but may impose a tax or duty; and I say, as well on the white as on the black person. But some certain inadmissible qualities may be adherent to persons which, from the necessity of things, must and will, notwithstanding this provision, justify the exclusion of the persons themselves, such as a plague, or hostile designs against the union by armed immigrants. In such a case, if the importation were not prevented, I should be more inclined to impute it to want of physical than of constitutional power. In consistency with this mode of reasoning, I believe that if congress should at any time be of opinion that a state of slavery attached to a person is a quality altogether inadmissible into America, they would not be bound by the clause above cited from prohibiting that hateful quality. As in the first case the plague, and in the second the enmity and arms, so in the third the state of slavery may, notwithstanding any thing in this clause, be declared by congress qualities, or conditions, or adherents, or what you please to call them, which, being attached to any person, the person himself can not be admitted.
"By another clause of the constitution, congress have power to regulate trade. Under that head not only the proposition now under consideration, but any other or further regulation which to congress may seem expedient, is fully in their power. Nay, sir, if these wretched Africans are to be considered as property, as some gentlemen would have it, and, consequently, as subjects of trade and commerce, they and their masters so far lose the benefit of their personality, that congress may at pleasure declare them contraband goods, and so prohibit the trade altogether.
"Again, sir, congress have power to establish a rule of naturalization. This rule, it is clear, depends on the mere pleasure of congress. Whenever they may declare, by law, that any and every person, black or white, who from foreign ports can only get his or her foot on the American shore, within the territory of the United States, shall, to all intents and purposes, be not only free persons, but free citizens. And that congress has such power is clearly proved by the very bill read this morning on the subject of naturalization, in which it is provided that the applicant shall be a "free white person," plainly implying that, but for that restriction, the slave black man, as well as the free white man, might avail himself of that law by fulfilling: its conditions.
"Moreover, congress have power to define and punish piracies and felonies on the high seas. Under this head, congress may, when they please, declare by law that an American going to the coast of Africa, and there receiving on board of auy vessel any person in chains or fetters, or in any manner under confinement, or carrying such person, whether sold as a slave or not, to any part of the world, without his own free will and consent, to be certified as congress may direct, shall be guilty of piracy and felony on the high seas, and, on conviction thereof, shall suffer death without benefit of clergy; and congress may, perhaps, go equally far with respect to foreigners who land slaves within the territory of the United States, in contravention of any regulation they nay please to make.
"So much as to the powers of congress. I desire that the world should know, I desire that those people in the gallery, about whom so much has been said, should know, that there is at least one member on this floor who believes that congress have ample powers to do all they have asked respecting the African slave-trade. Nor do I doubt that congress will, whenever necessity or policy dictate the measure, exercise those powers. I believe that the importation of one cargo of slaves would go far toward inducing such action; but I believe, also, that this necessity is not likely to happen. The states, I think, will severally do what is right in the premises.
"If the question were, what will congress do? not a member from the south is more ready than I to say, nothing. I think that as yet there is no necessity for acting. But the question being as to the powers of congress, those powers, if expressed at all, should be fully expressed."
Jackson, who rose in reply to Scott, after laboring to establish the divine origin of slavery by quotations from Moses, and its moral and political rectitude by the example of the Greeks and Romans, addresed himself then to the constitutional question. "The gentleman trusted there was no trafficking in the convention. What he called trafficking I believe was necessary. In order that the constitution might be made agreeable to all parties, interests were to be mutually given up. In suffering a bare majority of congress to decide on laws relative to navigation, the south admitted what was injurious to them, in order to obtain security for their slave property; and without it I believe the union would never have been completed. Break this tie, and you now dissolve it. Suppose congress were to forbid the eastern fishery, or to put restrictions upon it; would the eastern states submit? Affect the southern property, and gentlemen may assure themselves of the same tendency. The gentleman is willing to let this business rest till it appears what the states will do. His alternative is, if you will not abolish slavery, we will. He hoped the house would be cautious how they adopted this language, how they destroyed that constitution which had been so happily established."
Smith, of South Carolina, wished to see an end of this disagreeable business, and had determined to say nothing more on the subject, because he lamented the waste of time already occasioned by it, and the ill humor it had produced among gentlemen heretofore accustomed to treat each other with politeness. But the observations made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Scott) required some answer. He agreed that congress had no greater right to levy a duty of ten dollars on slaves imported than on freemen, for the constitution made no difference. It spoke of migration as well as importation. But this remark he could not reconcile with another made by the gentleman, that, as congress had power to regulate trade, they might, therefore, regulate the trade in slaves; for, if there was nothing in the constitution which held out the idea of slavery, how could these Africans be viewed in a light different from any other class of beings?
"But the gentleman had insisted that congress might prohibit the importation of any species of persons of an inadmissible quality; as, for instance, persons affected with a pestilential disorder; and, as slavery was as bad as the plague, they might interdict the importation of slaves. The argument was new and ingenious, and, if well founded, would go much further; for, if congress could interdict the bringing of a plague into the country, they had equal authority to drive a plague out of it; and as the Quaker memorialists had been a great plague to them, and as sore a plague to the southern states as any whatever, these Quakers, under this power, might be exterminated.
"The respectable name of Dr. Franklin had been mentioned as giving countenance to these memorials, one of which was signed by him as president of the abolition society. It was astonishing to see that gentleman's name to an application which called upon congress, in explicit terms, to break a solemn compact to which he had himself been a party. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Gerry) had declared that it was the opinion of the select committee, of which he was a member, that the memorial from the Pennsylvania society asked congress to violate the constitution. And it was no less astonishing that Dr. Franklin had taken the lead in a business which looked so much like a persecution of the southern inhabitants, especially when he recollected the parable the doctor had written some time ago with a view to show the impropriety of one set of men persecuting others for a difference of opinion."
Boudinot "agreed to the general doctrines of Scott, but could not go so far as to say that the clause in the constitution relating to the importation or migration of such persons as the states now existing shall think proper to admit, did not include the case of negro slaves. Candor required him to acknowledge that this was the express design of the constitution. He had been informed that the tax or duty of ten dollars was agreed to instead of five per cent, ad valorem, and that it was so expressly understood by all parties in the convention. It was, therefore, the interest and duty of congress to impose the tax, or it would not be doing justice to the states or equalizing the duties throughout the union. The gentlemen in opposition were justifiable in supporting the interests of heir constituents, but their warmth had been excessive. Yet even that warmth was not without excuse. It was an arduous task, in this enlightened age, to prove the legality of slavery. Winn gentlemen attempt to justify this unnatural traffic, or to prove the lawfulness of slavery, they ought to advert to the genius of our government and to the principles of the revolution. 'If it were possible for men who exercise their reason to believe,' says the declaration of 1775, setting forth the causes and necessity for taking up arms, 'that the divine author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute power in and an unbounded property over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the parliament of Great Britain some evidence that this dreadful authority over them had been granted to that body.' By the declaration of independence, in 1770, congress declare 'these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' Such was the language of America in the day of her distress.
"But there was a wide difference between justifying the African slave-trade and supporting a claim vested at the adoption of the constitution and guaranteed by it; nor would he be understood as contending for any right in congress to give freedom to those who are now held as slaves, or, at the present time, to prohibit the slave-trade. It would be a piece of inhumanity to turn these unhappy people loose, to murder each other or to perish for want of the necessaries of life. He never was an advocate for conduct so extravagant."
After an elaborate vindication of the Quakers, Boudinot denied that the petition signed by Franklin asked any thing contrary to the constitution. The request "was to go to the utmost verge of the constitution," not to go beyond it.
Jackson was by no means satisfied with the distinction attempted to be set up between the African slave-trade and the case of the slaves already in the country. "I am for none of these half-way consciences; if I was disposed to do any thing, I should be for total abolition. Let charity and humanity begin at home; let the gentlemen in the northern states who own slaves and advocate their cause, set the example of emancipation. Let them prove their own humanity; let them pull the beam out of their own eye previous to discovering the mote in their neighbor's. That is an argument that would speak for itself. Gentlemen have talked of our raising alarms; but it is at a reality, not at a bug-bear. The whole tenor of the resolutions has been contrary to southern interests; and manumission, emancipation, and abolition have been their intention. I give the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Scott) credit; I admit his candor; he has boldly spoken out. I wish the same might be done by other members, who appear to me to conceal their real designs under the specious pretext of concern for the interests of the southern states." Williamson thought the time of congress badly employed in passing abstract resolutions as to what they could or could not do, and still worse in discussing, what appeared to be the general subject of debate, whether the Quakers were the worst or the best of all religious societies. As to their conduct in the present case, he believed they held themselves bound in conscience to bear a testimony against slavery. He revered all men who respect the dictates of conscience at the expense of time arid money: such men are seldom bad members of society. "We, too, must regard the dictates of conscience; we are bound to support the constitution, and to protect the property of our fellow-citizens; and we are expressly prohibited by the constitution from giving liberty to a single slave. That business remains with the individual states; it is not committed to congress, who have no right to intermeddle with it." He was therefore opposed to all the resolutions.
After some further debate, in which the merits of the Quakers continued to hold a large place, the sixth resolution was agreed to. The seventh, pledging congress to exert their full powers for the restriction of the slave-trade — and as it might also be understood, for the discountenancing of slavery — was struck out. The committee then rose, and reported the resolutions to the house.
The next day, March 23d, as soon as the preliminary business had been disposed of, it was moved to take up this report. Ames expressed the opinion that the subject might rest at the stage it had reached. He regretted the time consumed, and the manner also in which the debate had been conducted. He reprobated the idea of a declaration of abstract propositions. Let the report lie on the files of the house, where it might be occasionally referred to.
Ames was highly complimented by Jackson, who wished that more of the members from the eastward had acted in the same spirit. Madison though! the suggestion of Ames a good one, with this modification, that the report of the committee of the whole should be entered on the journals for the information of the public, and to quiet the fears of the south, by showing that congress claimed no power to prohibit the importation of slaves before 1808, and no power of manumission at any time.
Burke "complained of this as an uncandid method of disposing of the business. He would rather it should pass regularly through the forms of the house. It was smuggling the affair to let it rest here, as it deprived the people of the counsel of their senate." Smith took the same ground. The precedents quoted of memorials entered on the journals were not applicable to the present question, which involved a discussion of the powers of congress. On a question as to those powers, the senate, composing one branch of the legislature, should certainly be consulted. Both reports were now to be entered on the journals, without any declaration to show which had been approved and which rejected. They were precluded from having the yeas and nays on the report, and yet it would be called the act of the house. Madison contended that, as it was impossible to shut the door altogether upon this business, the method proposed was the most conciliatory, and the best adapted to the present situation of things. The motion finally prevailed by a vote of twenty-nine to twenty-live, and the report was entered on the journal as follows:
"That the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, can not be prohibited by congress prior to the year 1808.
"That congress have no right to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, in any of the states, it remaining with the several states alone to provide any regulations therein which humanity and true policy require.
"That congress have authority to restrain the citizens of the United States from carrying on the African slave-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 said states admitting such importation.
"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."[2]
On the 22d of December, 1789, North Carolina passed an act ceding, on certain conditions, all her territory lying west of her present limits, to the United States. Among the conditions is the following:
"Provided always, that no regulations, made or to be made, by congress, shall tend to emancipate slaves."
The conditions exacted were acceded to by congress in an act approved April 2, 1790. No report of the debate on the passage of the act exists.
SLAVE POPULATION. — CENSUS OF 1790.
| Connecticut | 2,759 | North Carolina | 100,572 | |
| Delaware | 8,887 | Pennsylvania | 3,737 | |
| Georgia | 29,264 | Rhode Island | 952 | |
| Kentucky | 11,830 | South Carolina | 107,094 | |
| Maryland | 103,036 | Vermont | 17 | |
| New Hampshire | 158 | Virginia | 293,427 | |
| New Jersey | 11,423 | Territory south of Ohio. | 3,417 | |
| New York | 21,324 | Aggregate, 697,897 | ||
Vermont was admitted into the Union Feb. 18, 1791. The constitution under which she came in was originally adopted in 1777, and had been slightly altered in 1785. The first article of the Bill of Rights declared that "no male person born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be bound by law to serve any person as a servant, slave, or apprentice after he arrives at the age of twenty-one years, nor female, in like manner, after she arrives at the age of twenty-one years, unless they are bound by their own consent after they arrive at such age, or are bound by law for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like" This provision was contained in the constiution of 1777, so that to Vermont the honor belongs of having been the first American state to abolish and prohibit slavery.
Kentucky was admitted iuto the Union, by act of congress, Feb. 4, 1791, before any constitution had been formed for the state. In 1792, however, a constitution was framed. An article on the subject of slavery provided that the legislature should have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, nor without paying therefor, previous to such emancipation, a full equivalent in money; nor laws to prevent immigrants from bringing with them persons deemed slaves by the laws of any one of the United States, so long as any persons of like age and description should be continued in slavery by the laws of Kentucky. But laws might be passed prohibiting the introduction of slaves for the purpose of sale, and also laws to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity, to provide them with necessary clothing and provisions, and to abstain from all injuries extending to life or limb; and provision might be made, in case of disobedience to such laws, for the sale of the slave to some other owner, the proceeds to be paid over to the late master. The legislature was also required to pass laws giving to owners of slaves the right of emancipation, saving the rights of creditors, and requiring security that the emancipated slaves should not become a burden to the county.
During the congressional session of 1791, the abolition society of Pennsylvania presented a memorial, calling upon congress to exercise, for the suppression of the slave-trade, those powers which, by the report of the committee of the whole, entered on the journals of the house, congress had been declared to possess. Reënforced by others from the abolition societies of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, and from several local societies in Maryland, that memorial was referred to a special committee. As that committee made no report, memorials were presented at the next session from the abolition societies of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, recalling the attention of congress to the subject; but these were suffered to lie upon the table without reference. Afterward a separate petition was presented from Warner Mifflin, a philanthropic Quaker of Delaware, on the general subject of negro slavery, its injustice, and the necessity of its abolition. At the time of its presentation, this document was read and laid upon the table without comment. Two days after, Nov. 26, 1792, Steele, of North Carolina, called attention to it by observing "that, after what had passed at New York, he had hoped the house would have heard no more of that subject. To his surprise, he found the business started anew by a fanatic, who, not content with keeping his jwn conscience, undertook to be the keeper of the consciences of other men, and, in a manner not very decent, had obtruded his opinion on the house." After some complaints vhat such a petition should have been presented, Steele moved that it be returned to the petitioner by the clerk, and that the entry of it be erased from the journal. The petition, it chanced, had been presented by Ames, to whom Mifflin had applied for that purpose, as the Delaware member happened to c absent. Ames hastened to renew the declaration of his opinion, expressed in the debate two years before, that congress could take no steps as to the matter to which the memorial related. Having been requested to present it, he had done so on the general principle that every citizen had a right to petition the legislature, and to apply to any member as the vehicle to convey his petition to the house.
In seconding Steele's motion, Smith, of South Carolina, "admitted, to its full extent, the right of every citizen to petition for redress of grievances, and the duty of the house to consider such petitions. But the paper in question was not of that description. It was a mere rant and rhapsody of a meddling fanatic, interlarded with texts of Scripture, and without any specific prayer. The citizens of the southern states, finding that a paper of this sort had been received by the house, and formally entered on their journals, might justly be alarmed, and led to believe that doctrines were countenanced destructive of their interests. The gentleman who presented it, and who, he observed with regret, had not on this occasion displayed his usual regard for the southern states, had stated its contents to relate only to the slave-trade. Had he stated its real objects, namely, to create disunion among the states, and to excite the most horrible insurrections, the house would undoubtedly have refused its reception. After the proceedings at New York, his constituents had a right to expect that the subject would never be stirred again. These applications were not calculated to meliorate the condition of those who were their objects, and who were at present happy aud contented. On the contrary, by alienating their affections from their masters, and exciting a spirit of restlessness, they tended to make greater severities necessary. He therefore earnestly called upon the house, by agreeing to the present motion, to convince this troublesome enthusiast, and others who might be disposed to communicate their ravings and wild effusions, that they would meet the treatment they justly deserved. As the present application was disrespectful to the house, insulting to the southern members, and a libel on their constituents, it ought no longer to remain on the table, but should be returned to its author with marked disapprobation." That part of the motion relating to the return of the petition was agreed to; the part respecting the erasure of the journal was withdrawn by the mover.
An important act regulating the surrender of fugitives from justice and the restoration of fugitives from service, as provided for in the constitution, was passed in 1793.
Fugitives from justice, on the demand of the executive of the state whence they had fled upon the executive of any state in which they might be found, accompanied with an indictment or affidavit charging crime upon them, were to be delivered up and conveyed back for trial. This part of the act still remains in force.
In case of the escape out of any state or territory of any person held to service or labor under the laws thereof, the person to whom such labor was due, his agent, or attorney, might seize the fugitive and carry him before any United States judge, or before any magistrate of the city, town, or county in which the arrest was made; and such judge or magistrate, on proof to his satisfaction, either oral or by affidavit before any other magistrate, that the person seized was really a fugitive, and did owe labor as alleged, was to grant a certificate to that effect to the claimant, this certificate to serve as sufficient warrant for the removal of the fugitive to the state whence he had fled. Any person obstructing in any way such seizure or removal, or harboring or concealing any fugitive after notice, was liable to a penalty of $500, to be recovered by the claimant.
This act, which originated with the senate, seems to have passed the house without any debate. At the time of its passage, and for many years after, the above provisions attracted little attention. At a later period, they were denounced not only as exceedingly harsh and peremptory, opening a door to great abuses, but as unconstitutional, in subjecting that most important of all juridical questions, the right of personal liberty, to a summary jurisdiction, without trial by jury, or any appeal on points of law. Availing themselves of a decision of the supreme federal court as to the want of power in congress to impose duties on state officers, most of the free states passed acts forbidding their magistrates, under severe penalties, to take any part in carrying this law into execution; and it was thus substantially reduced to a dead letter.[3]
In 1194, a convention was held in Philadelphia of delegates from all, the abolition societies in the country. A memorial was drawn up by this convention in such a manner as to avoid constitutional objections, praying congress to do whatever they could for the suppression of the slave-trade. This memorial, with several Quaker petitions, was referred to a select committee, and the bill which they reported passed with little opposition. It prohibited the fitting out of vessels in the United States for supplying any foreign countries with slaves, under penalty of forfeiture of the vessel and a fine of $2,000.
In 1797, the subject of slavery was again brought before congress, by the presentation of a petition from the yearly meeting at Philadelphia of the Quakers. Among other matters, the memorial complained that certain persons of the African race, to the number of one hundred and thirty-four, set free by the Quakers, besides others whose cases were not so particularly known, had been reduced again into cruel bondage under the authority of an ex post facto law passed for that purpose by the state of North Carolina, in 1777, authorizing the seizure and resale, as slaves, of certain emancipated negroes.
Any action upon this petition was vehemenently opposed by Harper, of S. C., who complained that this was not the first, second, nor third time that the house had been troubled by similar applications, which had a very dangerous tendency. This and every other legislature ought to set their faces against memorials complaining of what it was impossible to alter.
Thacher, of Massachusetts, suggested, in reply, that where persons considered themselves injured, they would not be likely to leave off petitioning till the house took some action upon their petitions. If the Quakers considered themselves aggrieved, it was their right and their duty to present their memorial, not three, five, or seven times only, but seventy times seven, until redress was obtained; therefore, gentlemen who wished not to be troubled again ought to be in favor of reading and reference.
Lyon, of Vermont, observed that a grievance was complained of which ought to be remedied, namely, that a certain number of black people who had been net at liberty by their masters were now held in slavery contrary to right; he thought that ought to be inquired into.
Rutledge, of South Carolina, would not oppose a reference if he were sure the committee would report as strong a censure as the memorial deserved; such a censure as a set of men ought to meet who attempt to seduce the servants of gentlemen traveling to the seat of government, and who are incessantly importuning congress to interfere in a business with which, by the constitution, they have no concern. At a time when other communities were witnesses of the most horrid and barbarous scenes, these petitioners were endeavoring to excite a certain class to the commission of like enormities here. Were he sure that this conduct would be reprobated as it deserved, he would cheerfully vote for a reference; but not believing that it would be, he was for laying the memorial on the table or under the table, that the house might have done with the business, not for to-day, but forever.
Gallatin, of Pennsylvania, by whom the memorial had been offered, maintained that it was the practice of the house, whenever a petition was presented, to have it read a first and second time, and then to commit, unless it were expressed in such indecent terms as to induce the house to reject it, or related to a subject upon which it had been recently determined by a large majority not to act. It was not best to decide under the influence of such passion as had just been exhibited, and that furnished an additional reason for a reference. He also vindicated the character of the Quakers against the aspersions in which Rutledge had very freely indulged.
Sewall, of Massachusetts, suggested a third case, applicable, as he thought, to the present memorial, in which petitions might be rejected without a commitment, and that was when they related to matters over which the house had no cognizance, especially if they were of a nature to excite disagreeable sensations in a part of the members possessed of a species of property held under circumstances in themselves sufficiently uncomfortable. The present memorial seemed to relate to topics entirely within the jurisdiction of the states.
Macon declared that there was not a man in North Carolina who did not wish that there were no blacks in the country. Negro slavery was a misfortune; he considered it a curse; but there was no means of getting rid of it. And thereupon he proceeded to inveigh against the Quakers, whom he accused not only of unconstitutional applications to congress, but of continually endeavoring to stir up in the southern states insurrection among the negroes.
Against these assaults on the petitioners, Livingston, of New York, warmly protested. There might be individuals such as had been described; but as against the body of the Quakers these charges were false and unjust. Parker, of Virginia, and Blount, of North Carolina, warmly opposed the reference of the memorial. Nicholas, of Virginia, felt as much as other southern gentlemen on this subject, but as he thought the holders of slaves had nothing to fear from inquiry, he was in favor of a reference. So, also, was Smith, of Maryland. Finally, after a very warm debate, the reference was carried, and a special committee was appointed, of which Sitgreaves was chairman, Dana, Smith, of Maryland, Nicholas, and Schureman, of New Jersey, being members. This committee, after hearing the petitions, subsequently reported leave to withdraw, in which the house concurred, on the ground, as set forth in the report, that the matter complained of was exclusively of judicial cognizance, and that congress had no authority to interfere.
At the same session a bill was introduced for erecting all of that portion of the late British province of "West Florida within the jurisdiction of the United States into a government to be called the Mississippi Territory; to be constituted and regulated in all respects like the territory north-west of the Ohio, with the single exception that slavery would not be prohibited.
While this section of the act was under discussion, Thacher, of Massachusetts, having first stated that he intended to make a motion touching the rights of man, moved to strike out the exception as to slavery, so as to carry out the original project of Jefferson, as brought forward by him in the Continental Congress, of prohibiting slavery in all parts of the western territory of the United States, south as well as north of the Ohio.
Rutledge, of South Carolina, hoped that this motion would be withdrawn; not that he feared its passing, but he hoped the gentleman would not indulge himself and others in uttering philippics against a usage of most of the states merely because his and their philosophy happened to be at war with it. Surely, if his friend from Massachusetts had recollected that the most angry debate of the session had been occasioned by a motion on this very subject, he would not again have brought it forward. Such debates led to more mischief in certain parts of the Union than the gentleman was aware of, and he hoped, upon that consideration, the motion would be withdrawn. The allusion, doubtless, was to the advantage taken of these debates by the opposition to excite hostility against the federal government in those southern states in which its friends were at best but too weak.
Otis, of Massachusetts, very promptly responded to Rutledge in hoping that the motion would not be withdrawn; he wanted gentlemen from his part of the country to have an opportunity to show by their votes how little they were disposed to interfere with the southern states as to the species of property referred to.
Thacher remarked, in reply, "that he could by no means agree with his colleague (Otis.) In fact, they seldom did agree, and to-day they differed very widely indeed. The true interest of the Union would be promoted by agreeing to the amendment proposed, of which the tendency was to prevent the increase of an evil, acknowledged to be such by the very gentlemen themselves who held slaves. The gentleman from Virginia (Nicholas) had frequently told the house that slavery was an evil of very great magnitude, he agreed with that gentleman that it was so. He regarded slavery in the United States as the greatest of evils — an evil indirect hostility to the principles of our government; and hie believed the government had a right to take all due measures to diminish and destroy that evil, even though in doing so they might injure the property of some individuals; for he never could be brought to believe that an individual could have a right in any thing that went to the destruction of the government — a right in a wrong. Property in slaves is founded in wrong, and never be be right. The government must, of necessity, put a stop to this evil, and the sooner they entered upon the business the better. He did not like to hear much said about the rights of man, because of late there had been much quackery on that subject. But because those rights and the claim to them had been abused, it did not follow that men had no rights. Where legislators are chosen from the people and frequently renewed, and in case of laws which affect the interest of those who pass them, the rights of man are not likely to be often disregarded. But when we take upon us to legislate for men against their will, it is very proper to say something about those rights, and to remind gentlemen, at other times so eloquent upon this subject, that men, though held as slaves, are still men by nature, and entitled, therefore, to the rights of man — and hence his allusion to those rights in making the motion.
"We are about to establish a government for a new country. The government of which we form a part originated from, and is founded upon, the rights of man, and upon that ground we mean to uphold it. With what propriety, then, can a government emanate from us in which slavery is not only tolerated, but sanctioned by law? It has indeed been urged that, as this territory will be settled by emigrants from the southern states, they must be allowed to have slaves; as much as to say that the people of the south are fit for nothing but slave-drivers — that, if left to their own labor, they would starve!
"But if gentlemen thought that those now holding slaves within the limits of the proposed territory ought to be excepted from the operation of his amendment, he would agree to such exception for a limited period."
Thacher's amendment was lost. Only twelve votes were, given in favor of it A day or two after, Harper, of South Carolina, offered an amendment, which was carried without opposition, prohibiting the introduction into the new Mississippi territory of slaves from without the limits of the United States.
In this year, 1798, the constitution of Georgia was revised. Following the example already set by the assembly of the two Carolinas, the further importation of slaves "from Africa or any foreign place" was expressly prohibited. By a further provision, any person maliciously killing or dismembering a slave, was to suffer the same punishments as if the acts had been committed on a free white person, except in cases of insurrection, or "unless such death should happen by accident, in giving such slave moderate correction." But while these concessions were made to the antipathy to slavery, that institution was sustained by a clause copied from the constitution of Kentucky, but still more stringent, by which the legislature was forbidden to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves, except with the previous consent of the individual owners; nor were immigrants to be prohibited from bringing with them "such persons as may be deemed slaves by the law of any one of the United States."
In 1799, the legislature of New York passed a law for the gradual extinguishment of slavery, a measure which Governor Jay had much at heart, and which, after three previous unsuccessful attempts, was now at last carried. Those who were slaves at the passage of the act were to continue so for life; but all their children born after the 4th of July then following were to be free, to remain, however, with the owner of the mother as apprentices, males till the age of twenty-eight, and females till the age of twenty-five. The exportation of slaves was forbidden under a pecuniary penalty, the slave upon whom the attempt was made to become free at once. Persons removing into the state might bring with them slaves whom they had owned for a year previously; but slaves so brought in could not be sold.
In 1799, a convention met in Kentucky to revise the constitution of that growing state. An attempt was made to introduce a provision for the gradual abolition of slavery, which was supported by Henry Clay, a recent immigrant from Virginia, a young lawyer, who commenced a political career of half a century by holding a seat in this convention. The attempt met, however, with very feeble support, and, so far as related to the subject of slavery, the constitution underwent no change.
A similar proposition for the gradual abolition of slavery had been introduced a short time before into the Maryland assembly, but it found so little encouragement there as to be withdrawn by the mover. Even in Pennsylvania, a proposition introduced into the assembly for the immediate and total abolition of slavery, though supported by the earnest efforts of the Pennsylvania abolition society, failed of success. The contemporaneous act of the state of New York for the gradual abolition of slavery has been already mentioned.
On the 2d of January, 1800, a petition from certain free colored inhabitants of the city and county of Philadelphia was presented to congress by Waln, the city representative, setting forth that the slave-trade to the coast of Guinea, for the supply of foreign nations, was clandestinely carried on from various ports of the United States; that colored freemen were seized, fettered, and sold as slaves in various parts of the country; and that the fugitive law of 1793 was attended in its execution by many hard and distressing circumstances. The petitioners, knowing the limits of the authority of the general government, did not ask for the immediate emancipation of all those held in bondage; yet they begged congress to exert every means in its power to undo the heavy burdens, and to prepare the way for the oppressed to go free. Attention had recently been drawn to slavery and the slave-trade, not only by alleged violations of the act forbidding American vessels to assist in the supply of foreign slave-markets, but much more forcibly by a recent conspiracy, or alleged conspiracy in Virginia, which had produced a great alarm, resulting in the execution of several slaves charged as having been concerned in it. A great clamor was excited by Wain's motion to refer this petition to a committee already raised on the subject of the Blare-trade; a reference vehemently opposed, not only by Rutledge, Harper, Lee, Randolph, and other southern members, on the ground that the petition intermeddled with matters over which congress had no control, but also by Otis, of Boston, and Brown, of Rhode Issland, whose vehewas even greater, if possible, than that of the members from the south. Wain, Thacher, Smilie, Dana, and Gallatin argued, on the other hand, that, as parts of the petition were certainly within the jurisdiction of congress, it ought to be received and acted upon. The particulars of this debate are very im perfectly preserved; but, as usual on this subject, it was a very warm one. Rutledge called for the yeas and nays, wishing, as he said, to show by how decisive a majority all interference had been declined, and so to allay any fear that the matter would ever again be agitated in congress. Wain, however, anticipated the vote by withdrawing his motion, and substituting another, for the reference of such parts of the petition as related to the laws of the United States touching fugitives from service, and the supply of foreign countries with slaves. Rutledge raised a point of order as to the reference of a part of a petition, but the speaker decided against him. Gray, of Virginia, then moved to amend by adding a declaration that the unreferred parts of the petition, inviting congress to legislate on subjects over which the general government has no jurisdiction, "have a tendency to create disquiet and jealousy, and ought, therefore, to receive the pointed disapprobation of this house." Objections being stated to this amendment by Dana and Thacher, Gray agreed to modify it by substituting for the last clause, "ought therefore to receive no encouragement or countenance from this house." Against the amendment thus modified but one vote was given in the negative, that of Thacher, who had represented the district of Maine ever since the adoption of the constitution, and who had lost no opportunity to signalize his hostility to slavery. In the course of the session, the committee to whom the petition was referred brought in a bill which passed to be enacted, restricting, by more stringent provisions, the supply of slaves to foreign countries by ships of the United States.[4]