It is however to be observed, (said Mr. Iredell,) that the first and

fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article, are

protected from any alteration till the year 1808; and in order that no

consolidation should take place, it is provided, that no State shall,

by any amendment or alteration, be ever deprived of an equal suffrage

in the Senate without its own consent. The two first prohibitions are

with respect to the census, according to which direct taxes are

imposed, and with respect to the importation of slaves. As to the

first, it must be observed, that there is a material difference

between the Northern and Southern States. The Northern States have

been much longer settled, and are much fuller of people than the

Southern, but have not land in equal proportion, nor scarcely any

slaves. The subject of this article was regulated with great

difficulty, and by a spirit of concession which it would not be

prudent to disturb for a good many years. In twenty years there will

probably be a great alteration, and then the subject may be considered

with less difficulty and greater coolness. In the mean time, the

compromise was upon the best footing that could be obtained. A

compromise likewise took place with regard to the importation of

slaves. It is probable that all the members reprobated this inhuman

traffic, but those of South Carolina and Georgia would not consent to

an immediate prohibition of it; one reason of which was, that during

the last war they lost a vast number of negroes, which loss they wish

to supply. In the mean time, it is left to the States to admit or

prohibit the importation, and Congress may impose a limited duty upon

it.

* * * * *

SOUTH CAROLINA CONVENTION.

Hon. Rawlins Lowndes. In the first place, what cause was there for

jealousy of our importing negroes? Why confine us to twenty years, or

rather why limit us at all? For his part he thought this trade could

be justified on the principles of religion, humanity, and justice; for

certainly to translate a set of human beings from a bad country to a

better, was fulfilling every part of these principles. But they don't

like our slaves, because they have none themselves; and therefore want

to exclude us from this great advantage; why should the Southern

States allow of this, without the consent of nine States?

Judge Pendleton observed, that only three States, Georgia, South

Carolina, and North Carolina, allowed the importation of negroes.

Virginia had a clause in her constitution for this purpose, and

Maryland, he believed, even before the war, prohibited them.

Mr. Lowndes continued--that we had a law prohibiting the importation

of negroes for three years, a law he greatly approved of; but there

was no reason offered, why the Southern States might not find it

necessary to alter their conduct, and open their ports. Without

negroes this State would degenerate into one of the most contemptible

in the Union: and cited an expression that fell from Gen. Pinckney on

a former debate, that whilst there remained one acre of swamp land in

South Carolina he should raise his voice against restricting the

importation of negroes. Even in granting the importation for twenty

years, care had been taken to make us pay for this indulgence, each

negro being liable, on importation, to pay a duty not exceeding ten

dollars, and, in addition this, were liable to a capitation tax.

Negroes were our wealth, our only natural resource; yet behold how our

kind friends in the North were determined soon to tie up our hands,

and drain us of what we had. The Eastern States drew their means of

subsistence, in a great treasure, from their shipping; and on that

head, they had been particularly careful not to allow of any burdens:

they were not to pay tonnage, or duties; no, not even the form of

clearing out: all ports were free and open to them! Why, then, call

this a reciprocal bargain, which took all from one party, to bestow it

on the other?

Major Butler observed that they were to pay a five per cent impost.

This, Mr. Lowndes proved, must fall upon the consumer. They are to be

the carriers: and we, being the consumers, therefore all expenses

would fall upon us.

Hon. E. Rutledge. The gentleman had complained of the inequality of

the taxes between the Northern and Southern States--that ten dollars a

head was imposed on the importation of negroes, and that those negroes

were afterwards taxed. To this it was answered, that the ten dollars

per head was an equivalent to the five per cent on imported articles;

and as to their being afterwards taxed, the advantage is on our side;

or, at least, not against us.

In the Northern State, the labor is performed by white people; in the

Southern by black. All the free people (and there are few others) in

the Northern States, are to be taxed by the new constitution whereas,

only the free people, and two-fifths of the slaves in the Southern

States are to be rated in the apportioning of taxes.

But the principal objection is, that no duties are laid on

shipping--that in fact the carrying trade was to be vested in a great

measure in the Americans; that the ship-building business was

principally carried on in the Northern States. When this subject is

duly considered, the Southern States, should be the last to object to

it. Mr. Rutledge then went into a consideration of the subject; after

which the House adjourned.

Gen. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. We were at a loss for some time for

a rule to ascertain the proportionate wealth of the States, at last we

thought that the productive labor of the inhabitants was the best rule

for ascertaining their wealth; in conformity to this rule, joined to a

spirit of concession, we determined that representatives should be

apportioned among the several States, by adding to the whole number of

free persons three-fifths of the slaves. We thus obtained a

representation for our property, and I confess I did not expect that

we had conceded too much to the Eastern States, when they allowed us a

representation for a species of property which they have not among

them.

The honorable gentleman alleges, that the Southern States are weak, I

sincerely agree with him--we are so weak that by ourselves we could

not form an union strong enough for the purpose of effectually

protecting each other. Without union with the other States, South

Carolina must soon fall. Is there any one among us so much a Quixotte

as to suppose that this State could long maintain her independence if

she stood alone, or was only connected with the Southern States? I

scarcely believe there is. Let an invading power send a naval force

into the Chesapeake to keep Virginia in alarm, and attack South

Carolina with such a naval and military force as Sir Henry Clinton

brought here in 1780, and though they might not soon conquer us, they

would certainly do us an infinite deal of mischief; and if they

considerably increased their numbers, we should probably fall. As,

from the nature of our climate, and the fewness of our inhabitants, we

are undoubtedly weak, should we not endeavor to form a close union

with the Eastern States, who are strong?

For who have been the greatest sufferers in the Union, by our

obtaining, our independence? I answer, the Eastern States; they have

lost every thing but their country, and their freedom. It is notorious

that some ports to the Eastward, which used to fit out one hundred and

fifty sail of vessels, do not now fit out thirty; that their trade of

ship-building, which used to be very considerable, is now annihilated;

that their fisheries are trifling, and their mariners in want of

bread; surely we are called upon by every tie of justice, friendships,

and humanity, to relieve their distresses; and as by their exertions

they have assisted us in establishing our freedom, we should let them,

in some measure, partake of our prosperity. The General then said he

would make a few observations on the objections which the gentleman

had thrown out on the restrictions that might be laid on the African

trade after the year 1808. On this point your delegates had to contend

with the religious and political prejudices of the Eastern and Middle

States, and with the interested and inconsistent opinion of Virginia,

who was warmly opposed to our importing more slaves. I am of the same

opinion now as I was two years ago, when I used the expressions that

the gentleman has quoted, that while there remained one acre of swamp

land uncleared of South Carolina, I would raise my voice against

restricting the importation of negroes. I am as thoroughly convinced

as that gentleman is, that the nature of our climate, and the flat

swampy situation of our country, obliges us to cultivate our land with

negroes, and that without them South Carolina would soon be a desert

waste.

You have so frequently heard my sentiments on this subject that I need

not now repeat them. It was alleged, by some of the members who

opposed an unlimited importation, that slaves increased the weakness

of any State who admitted them; that they were a dangerous species of

property, which an invading enemy could easily turn against ourselves

and the neighboring States, and that as we were allowed a

representation for them in the House of Representatives, our influence

in government would be increased in proportion as we were less able to

defend ourselves. "Show some period," said the members from the

Eastern States, "when it may be in our power to put a stop, if we

please, to the importation of this weakness, and we will endeavor, for

your convenience, to restrain the religious and political prejudices

of our people on this subject."

The Middle States and Virginia made us no such proposition; they were

for an immediate and total prohibition. We endeavored to obviate the

objections that were made, in the best manner we could, and assigned

reasons for our insisting on the importation, which there is no

occasion to repeat, as they must occur to every gentleman in the

House: a committee of the States was appointed in order to accommodate

this matter, and after a great deal of difficulty, it was settled on

the footing recited in the Constitution.

By this settlement we have secured an unlimited importation of negroes

for twenty years; nor is it declared that the importation shall be

then stopped; it may be continued--we have a security that the general

government can never emancipate them, for no such authority is

granted, and it is admitted on all hands, that the general government

has no powers but what are expressly granted by the constitution; and

that all rights not expressed were reserved by the several States. We

have obtained a right to recover our slaves, in whatever part of

America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before. In

short, considering all circumstances, we have made the best terms, for

the security of this species of property, it was in our power to make.

We would have made better if we could, but on the whole I do not think

them bad.

Hon. Robert Barnwell. Mr. Barnwell continued to say, I now come to the

last point for consideration, I mean the clause relative to the

negroes; and here I am particularly pleased with the Constitution; it

has not left this matter of so much importance to us open to immediate

investigation; no, it has declared that the United States shall not,

at any rate, consider this matter for twenty-one years, and yet

gentlemen are displeased with it.

Congress has guaranteed this right for that space of time, and at its

expiration may continue it as long as they please. This question then

arises, what will their interest lead them to do? The Eastern States,

as the honorable gentleman says, will become the carriers of America,

it will, therefore certainly be their interest to encourage

exportation to as great an extent as possible; and if the quantum of

our products will be diminished by the prohibition of negroes, I

appeal to the belief of every man, whether he thinks those very

carriers will themselves dam up the resources from whence their profit

is derived? To think so is so contradictory to the general conduct of

mankind, that I am of opinion, that without we ourselves put a stop to

them, the traffic for negroes will continue forever.

* * * * *

FEDERALIST, No. 42.

BY JAMES MADISON

It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the

importation of slaves, had not been postponed until the year 1808, or

rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it

is not difficult to account either for this restriction on the general

government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed.

It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of

humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate for ever within

these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the

barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a

considerable discouragement from the Federal government, and may be

totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue

the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given

by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the

unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them, of being

redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethern! Attempts

have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the

Constitution, by representing it on one side, as a criminal toleration

of an illicit practice; and on another, as calculated to prevent

voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention

these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for

they deserve none; but as specimens of the manner and spirit, in which

some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed

government.

* * * * *

FEDERALIST, No. 54.

BY JAMES MADISON.

All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said: but does it follow from

an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of

slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves

ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation?

Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought

therefore, to be comprehended in estimates of taxation, which are

founded on property, and to be excluded from representation, which is

regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection as I

understand it, stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in

stating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side. We

subscribe to the doctrine, might one of our Southern brethern observe,

that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation

more immediately to property; and we join in the application of this

distinction to the case of our slaves.

But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as

property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the

case is, that they partake of both these qualities, being considered

by our laws, in some respects as persons, and in other respects as

property.

In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in

being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject

at all times to be restrained in his liberty: and chastised in his

body by the capricious will of another; the slave may appear to be

degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational

animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being

protected, on the other hand, in his life, and in his limbs, against

the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his

liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed

against others; the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as

a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as

a moral person, not as a mere article of property. The Federal

constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of

our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and

property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character

bestowed on them by the laws under which they live, and it will not be

denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under

the pretext, that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects

of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of

numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the

rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be

refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants.

This question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all

sides, that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they

are the only proper scale of representation. Would the convention have

been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the

list of inhabitants, when the shares of representation were to be

calculated; and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of

contributions was to be adjusted?

Could it be reasonably expected, that the Southern States would concur

in a system, which considered their slaves in some degree as men, when

burdens were to be imposed, but refused to consider them in the same

light, when advantages were to be conferred?

Might not some surprise also be expressed, that those who reproach the

Southern States with the, barbarous policy of considering as property

a part of their human brethern, should themselves contend, that the

government to which all the States are to be parties, ought to

consider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light

of property, than the very laws of which they complain?

It may be replied, perhaps, that slaves are not included in the

estimate of representatives in any of the States possessing them. They

neither vote themselves, nor increase the votes of their masters. Upon

what principle, then, ought they to be taken into the Federal estimate

of representation? In rejecting them altogether, the constitution

would, in this respect, have followed the very laws which have been

appealed to as the proper guide.

This objection is repelled by a single observation. It is a

fundamental principle of the proposed constitution, that as the

aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is

to be determined by a Federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of

inhabitants; so, the right of choosing this allotted number in each

State, is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants, as the

State itself may designate. The qualifications of which the right of

suffrage depends, are not perhaps the same in any two States. In some

of the States the difference is very material. In every State, a

certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the

constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which

the Federal constitution apportions the representatives. In this point

of view, the Southern States might retort the complaint, by insisting,

that the principle laid down by the convention required that no regard

should be had to the policy of particular States towards their own

inhabitants; and consequently, that the slaves, as inhabitants, should

have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in

like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other

States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens. A rigorous

adherence, however, to this principle is waived by those who would be

gainers by it. All that they ask, is that equal moderation be shown on

the other side. Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in

truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the

constitution be annually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants,

but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants,

which regards the _slave_ as divested of two-fifths of the _man_.

DEBATES IN FIRST CONGRESS,

MAY 13, 1789.

Mr. Parker (of Va.) moved to insert a clause in the bill, imposing a

duty on the importation of slaves of ten dollars each person. He was

sorry that the constitution prevented Congress from prohibiting the

importation altogether; he thought it a defect in that instrument that

it allowed of such actions, it was contrary to the revolution

principles, and ought not to be permitted; but as he could not do all

the good he desired, he was willing to do what lay in his power. He

hoped such a duty as he moved for would prevent, in some degree, this

irrational and inhuman traffic; if so, he should feel happy from the

success of his motion.

Mr. Smith (of South Carolina,) hoped that such an important and

serious proposition as this would not be hastily adopted; it was a

very late moment for the introduction of new subjects. He expected the

committee had got through the business, and would rise without

discussing any thing further; at least, if gentlemen were determined

on considering the present motion, he hoped they would delay for a few

days, in order to give time for an examination of the subject. It was

certainly a matter big with the most serious consequences to the State

he represented; he did not think any one thing that had been discussed

was so important to them, and the welfare of the Union, as the

question now brought forward, but he was not prepared to enter on any

argument, and therefore requested the motion might either be withdrawn

or laid on the table.

Mr. Sherman (of Ct.) approved of the object of the motion, but he did

not think this bill was proper to embrace the subject. He could not

reconcile himself to the insertion of human beings as an article of

duty, among goods, wares and merchandise. He hoped it would be

withdrawn for the present, and taken up hereafter as an independent

subject.

Mr. Jackson, (of Geo.) observing the quarter from which this motion

came, said it did not surprise him, though it might have that effect

on others. He recollected that Virginia was an old settled State, and

had her complement of slaves, so she was careless of recruiting her

numbers by this means; the natural increase of her imported blacks

were sufficient for their purpose; but he thought gentlemen ought to

let their neighbors get supplied before they imposed such a burthen

upon the importation. He knew this business was viewed in an odious

light to the Eastward, because the people were capable of doing their

own work, and had no occasion for slaves; but gentlemen will have some

feeling for others; they will not try to throw all the weight upon

others, who have assisted in lightening their burdens; they do not

wish to charge us for every comfort and enjoyment of life, and at the

same time take away the means of procuring them; they do not wish to

break us down at once.

He was convinced, from the inaptitude of the motion, and the want of

time to consider it, that the candor of the gentleman would induce him

to withdraw it for the present; and if ever it came forward again, he

hoped it would comprehend the white slaves as well as black, who were

imported from all the goals of Europe; wretches, convicted of the most

flagrant crimes, were brought in and sold without any duty whatever.

He thought that they ought to be taxed equal to the Africans, and had

no doubt but the constitutionality and propriety of such a measure was

equally apparent as the one proposed.

Mr. Tucker (of S.C.) thought it unfair to bring in such an important

subject at the time when debate was almost precluded. The committee

had gone through the impost bill, and the whole Union were impatiently

expecting the result of their deliberations, the public must be

disappointed and much revenue lost, or this question cannot undergo

that full discussion which it deserves.

We have no right, said he, to consider whether the importation of

slaves is proper or not; the Constitution gives us no power on that

point, it is left to the States to judge of that matter as they see

fit. But if it was a business the gentleman was determined to

discourage, he ought to have brought his motion forward sooner, and

even then not have introduced it without previous notice. He hoped the

committee would reject the motion, if it was not withdrawn; he was not

speaking so much for the State he represented, as for Georgia, because

the State of South Carolina had a prohibitory law, which could be

renewed when its limitation expired.

Mr. Parker (of Va.,) had ventured to introduce the subject after full

deliberation, and did not like to withdraw it. Although the gentleman

from Connecticut (Mr. Sherman) had said, that they ought not to be

enumerated with goods, wares, and merchandise, he believed they were

looked upon by the African traders in this light, he knew it was

degrading the human species to annex that character to them; but he

would rather do this than continue the actual evil of importing slaves

a moment longer. He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their

power to restore to human nature its inherent privileges, and if

possible wipe off the stigma which America laboured under. The

inconsistency in our principles, with which we are justly charged,

should be done away; that we may shew by our actions the pure

beneficence of the doctrine we held out to the world in our

declaration of independence.

Mr. Sherman (of Ct.,) thought the principles of the motion and the

principles of the bill were inconsistent; the principle of the bill

was to raise revenue, the principle of the motion to correct a moral

evil. Now, considering it as an object of revenue, it would be unjust,

because two or three States would bear the whole burthen, while he

believed they bore their full proportion of all the rest. He was

against receiving the motion into this bill, though he had no

objection to taking it up by itself, on the principles of humanity and

policy; and therefore would vote against it if it was not withdrawn.

Mr. Ames (of Mass.,) joined the gentleman last up. No one could

suppose him favorable to slavery, he detested it from his soul, but he

had some doubts whether imposing a duty on the importation, would not

have the appearance of countenancing the practice; it was certainly a

subject of some delicacy, and no one appeared to be prepared for the

discussion, he therefore hoped the motion would be withdrawn.

Mr. Livermore. Was not against the principle of the motion, but in the

present case he conceived it improper. If negroes were goods, wares,

or merchandise, they came within the title of the bill; if they were

not, the bill would be inconsistent: but if they are goods, wares or

merchandise, the 5 per cent ad valorum, will embrace the importation;

and the duty of 5 per cent is nearly equal to 10 dollars per head, so

there is no occasion to add it even on the score of revenue.

Mr. Jackson (of Ga.,) said it was the fashion of the day, to favor the

liberty of slaves; he would not go into a discussion of the subject,

but he believed it was capable of demonstration that they were better

off in their present situation, than they would be if they were

manumitted; what are they to do if they are discharged? Work for a

living? Experience has shewn us they will not. Examine what is become

of those in Maryland, many of them have been set free in that State;

did they turn themselves to industry and useful pursuits? No, they

turn out common pickpockets, petty larceny villains; and is this

mercy, forsooth, to turn them into a way in which they must lose their

lives,--for where they are thrown upon the world, void of property and

connections, they cannot get their living but by pilfering. What is to

be done for compensation? Will Virginia set all her negroes free? Will

they give up the money they cost them, and to whom? When this practice

comes to be tried there, the sound of liberty will lose those charms

which make it grateful to the ravished ear.

But our slaves are not in a worse situation than they were on the

coast of Africa; it is not uncommon there for the parents to sell

their children in peace; and in war the whole are taken and made

slaves together. In these cases it is only a change of one slavery for

another; and are they not better here, where they have a master bound

by the ties of interest and law to provide for their support and

comfort in old age, or infirmity, in which, if they were free, they

would sink under the pressure of woe for want of assistance.

He would say nothing of the partiality of such a tax, it was admitted

by the avowed friends of the measure; Georgia in particular would be

oppressed. On this account it would be the most odious tax Congress

could impose.

Mr. Schureman (of N.J.) hoped the gentleman would withdraw his motion,

because the present was not the time or place for introducing the

business; he thought it had better be brought forward in the House, as

a distinct proposition. If the gentleman persisted in having the

question determined, he would move the previous question if he was

supported.

Mr. Madison, (of Va.) I cannot concur with gentlemen who think the

present an improper time or place to enter into a discussion of the

proposed motion; if it is taken up in a separate view, we shall do the

same thing at a greater expense of time. But the gentlemen say that it

is improper to connect the two objects, because they do not come

within the title of the bill. But this objection may be obviated by

accommodating the title to the contents; there may be some

inconsistency in combining the ideas which gentlemen have expressed,

that is, considering the human race as a species of property; but the

evil does not arise from adopting the clause now proposed, it is from

the importation to which it relates. Our object in enumerating persons

on paper with merchandise, is to prevent the practice of actually

treating them as such, by having them, in future, forming part of the

cargoes of goods, wares, and merchandise to be imported into the

United States. The motion is calculated to avoid the very evil

intimated by the gentleman. It has been said that this tax will be

partial and oppressive; but suppose a fair view is taken of this

subject, I think we may form a different conclusion. But if it be

partial or oppressive, are there not many instances in which we have

laid taxes of this nature? Yet are they not thought to be justified by

national policy? If any article is warranted on this account, how much

more are we authorized to proceed on this occasion? The dictates of

humanity, the principles of the people, the national safety and

happiness, and prudent policy requires it of us; the constitution has

particularly called our attention to it--and of all the articles

contained in the bill before us, this is one of the last I should be

willing to make a concession upon so far as I was at liberty to go,

according to the terms of the constitution or principles of justice--I

would not have it understood that my zeal would carry me to disobey

the inviolable commands of either.

I understood it had been intimated, that the motion was inconsistent

or unconstitutional. I believe, sir, my worthy colleague has formed

the words with a particular reference to the constitution; any how, so

far as the duty is expressed, it perfectly accords with that

instrument; if there are any inconsistencies in it, they may be

rectified; I believe the intention is well understood, but I am far

from supposing the diction improper. If the description of the persons

does not accord with the ideas of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr.

Jackson,) and his idea is a proper one for the committee to adopt, I

see no difficulty in changing the phraseology.

I conceive the constitution, in this particular, was formed in order

that the government, whilst it was restrained from laying a total

prohibition, might be able to give some testimony of the sense of

America, with respect to the African trade. We have liberty to impose

a tax or duty upon the importation of such persons as any of the

States now existing shall think proper to admit; and this liberty was

granted, I presume, upon two considerations--the first was, that until

the time arrived when they might abolish the importation of slaves,

they might have an opportunity of evidencing their sentiments, on the

policy and humanity of such a trade; the other was that they might be

taxed in due proportion with other articles imported; for if the

possessor will consider them as property, of course they are of value

and ought to be paid for. If gentlemen are apprehensive of oppression

from the weight of the tax, let them make an estimate of its

proportion, and they will find that it very little exceeds five per

cent, ad valorem, so that they will gain very little by having them

thrown into that mass of articles, whilst by selecting them in the

manner proposed, we shall fulfil the prevailing expectation of our

fellow citizens, and perform our duty in executing the purposes of the

constitution. It is to be hoped that by expressing a national

disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save ourselves

from reproaches, and our posterity the imbecility ever attendant on a

country filled with slaves.

I do not wish to say any thing harsh, to the hearing of gentlemen who

entertain different sentiments from me, or different sentiments from

those I represent; but if there is any one point in which it is

clearly the policy of this nation, so far as we constitutionally can,

to vary the practice obtaining under some of the State governments, it

is this; but it is certain a majority of the States are opposed to

this practice, therefore, upon principle, we ought to discountenance

it as far as is in our power.

If I was not afraid of being told that the representatives of the

several States, are the best able to judge of what is proper and

conducive to their particular prosperity, I should venture to say that

it is as much the interest of Georgia and South Carolina, as of any in

the Union. Every addition they receive to their number of slaves,

tends to weaken them and renders them less capable of self defence. In

case of hostilities with foreign nations, they will be the means of

inviting attack instead of repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty

of the general government to protect every part of the empire against

danger, as well internal as external; every thing therefore which

tends to increase this danger, though it may be a local affair, yet if

it involves national expense or safety, becomes of concern to every

part of the Union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of

those charged with the general administration of the government. I

hope, in making these observations, I shall not be understood to mean

that a proper attention ought not to be paid to the local opinions and

circumstances of any part of the United States, or that the particular

representatives are not best able to judge of the sense of their

immediate constituents.

If we examine the proposal measure by the agreement there is between

it, and the existing State laws, it will show us that it is patronized

by a very respectable part of the Union. I am informed that South

Carolina has prohibited the importation of slaves for several years

yet to come; we have the satisfaction then of reflecting that we do

nothing more than their own laws do at this moment. This is not the

case with one State. I am sorry that her situation is such as to seem

to require a population of this nature, but it is impossible in the

nature of things, to consult the national good without doing what we

do not wish to do, to some particular part. Perhaps gentlemen contend

against the introduction of the clause, on too slight grounds. If it

does not conform with the title of the bill, alter the latter; if it

does not conform to the precise terms of the constitution, amend it.

But if it will tend to delay the whole bill, that perhaps will be the

best reason for making it the object of a separate one. If this is the

sense of the committee I shall submit.

Mr. Gerry (of Mass.) thought all duties ought to be laid as equal as

possible. He had endeavored to enforce this principle yesterday, but

without the success he wished for, he was bound by the principles of

justice therefore to vote for the proposition; but if the committee

were desirous of considering the subject fully by itself, he had no

objection, but he thought when gentlemen laid down a principle, they

ought to support it generally.

Mr. Burke (of S.C.) said, gentlemen were contending for nothing; that

the value of a slave averaged about £80, and the duty on that sum at

five per cent, would be ten dollars, as congress could go no farther

than that sum, he conceived it made not difference whether they were

enumerated or left in the common mass.

Mr. Madison, (of Va.) If we contend for nothing, the gentlemen who are

opposed to us do not contend for a great deal; but the question is,

whether the five percent ad valorem, on all articles imported, will

have any operation at all upon the introduction of slaves, unless we

make a particular enumeration on this account; the collector may

mistake, for he would not presume to apply the term goods, wares, and

merchandise to any person whatsoever. But if that general definition

of goods, wares, and merchandise are supposed to include African

Slaves, why may we not particularly enumerate them, and lay the duty

pointed out by the Constitution, which, as gentlemen tell us, is no

more than five per cent upon their value; this will not increase the

burden upon any, but it will be that manifestation of our sense,

expected by our constituents, and demanded by justice and humanity.

Mr. Bland (of Va.) had no doubt of the propriety or good policy of

this measure. He had made up his mind upon it, he wished slaves had

never been introduced into America; but if it was impossible at this

time to cure the evil, he was very willing to join in any measures

that would prevent its extending farther. He had some doubts whether

the prohibitory laws of the States were not in part repealed. Those

who had endeavored to discountenance this trade, by laying a duty on

the importation, were prevented by the Constitution from continuing

such regulation, which declares, that no State shall lay any impost or

duties on imports. If this was the case, and he suspected pretty

strongly that it was, the necessity of adopting the proposition of his

colleague was not apparent.

Mr. Sherman (of Ct.) said, the Constitution does not consider these

persons as a species of property; it speaks of them as persons, and

says, that a tax or duty may be imposed on the importation of them

into any State which shall permit the same, but they have no power to

prohibit such importation for twenty years. But Congress have power to

declare upon what terms persons coming into the United States shall be

entitled to citizenship; the rule of naturalization must however be

uniform. He was convinced there were others ought to be regulated in

this particular, the importation of whom was of an evil tendency, he

meant convicts particularly. He thought that some regulation

respecting them was also proper; but it being a different subject, it

ought to be taken up in a different manner.

Mr. Madison (of Va.) was led to believe, from the observation that had

fell from the gentlemen, that it would be best to make this the

subject of a distinct bill: he therefore wished his colleague would

withdraw his motion, and move in the house for leave to bring in a

bill on the same principles.

Mr. Parker (of Va.) consented to withdraw his motion, under a

conviction that the house was fully satisfied of its propriety. He

knew very well that these persons were neither goods, nor wares, but

they were treated as articles of merchandise. Although he wished to

get rid of this part of his property, yet he should not consent to

deprive other people of theirs by any act of his without their

consent.

The committee rose, reported progress, and the house adjourned.

FEBRUARY 11th, 1790.

Mr. Lawrance (of New York,) presented an address from the society of

Friends, in the City of New York; in which they set forth their desire

of co-operating with their Southern brethren.

Mr. Hartley (of Penn.) then moved to refer the address of the annual

assembly of Friends, held at Philadelphia, to a committee; he thought

it a mark of respect due so numerous and respectable a part of the

community.

Mr. White (of Va.) seconded the motion.

Mr. Smith, (of S.C.) However respectable the petitioners may be, I

hope gentlemen will consider that others equally respectable are

opposed to the object which is aimed at, and are entitled to an

opportunity of being heard before the question is determined. I

flatter myself gentlemen will not press the point of commitment

to-day, it being contrary to our usual mode of procedure.

Mr. Fitzsimons, (of Penn.) If we were now about to determine the final

question, the observation of the gentleman from South Carolina would

apply; but, sir, the present question does not touch upon the merits

of the case; it is merely to refer the memorial to a committee, to

consider what is proper to be done; gentlemen, therefore, who do not

mean to oppose the commitment to-morrow, may as well agree to it

to-day, because it will tend to save the time of the house.

Mr. Jackson (of Geo.) wished to know why the second reading was to be

contended for to-day, when it was diverting the attention of the

members from the great object that was before the committee of the

whole? Is it because the feelings of the Friends will be hurt, to have

their affair conducted in the usual course of business? Gentlemen who

advocate the second reading to-day, should respect the feelings of the

members who represent that part of the Union which is principally to

be affected by the measure. I believe, sir, that the latter class

consists of as useful and as good citizens as the petitioners, men

equally friends to the revolution, and equally susceptible of the

refined sensations of humanity and benevolence. Why then should such

particular attention be paid to them, for bringing forward a business

of questionable policy? If Congress are disposed to interfere in the

importation of slaves, they can take the subject up without advisers,

because the Constitution expressly mentions all the power they can

exercise on the subject.

Mr. Sherman (of Conn.) suggested the idea of referring it to a

committee, to consist of a member from each State, because several

States had already made some regulations on this subject. The sooner

the subject was taken up he thought it would be the better.

Mr. Parker, (of Va.) I hope, Mr. Speaker, the petition of these

respectable people, will be attended to with all the readiness the

importance of its object demands: and I cannot help expressing the

pleasure I feel in finding so considerable a part of the community

attending to matters of such momentous concern to the future

prosperity and happiness of the people of America. I think it my duty,

as a citizen of the Union, to espouse their cause; and it is incumbent

upon every member of this house to sift the subject well, and

ascertain what can be done to restrain a practice so nefarious. The

Constitution has authorized as to levy a tax upon the importation of

such persons as the States shall authorize to be admitted. I would

willingly go to that extent; and if any thing further can be devised

to discountenance the trade, consistent with the terms of the

Constitution, I shall cheerfully give it my assent and support.

Mr. Madison, (of Va.) The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr.

Fitzsimons) has put this question on its proper ground. If gentlemen

do not mean to oppose the commitment to-morrow, they may as well

acquiesce in it to-day; and I apprehend gentlemen need not be alarmed

at any measure it is likely Congress should 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 are 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; and the petition from

New York states a case, that may require the consideration of

Congress. If anything is within the Federal authority to restrain such

violation of the rights of nations, and of mankind, as is supposed to

be practised 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 (of Md.) 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 property of sects to imagine they understood the rights of

human nature letter than all the world beside; 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 intention--what would you do with a

petition of this kind? Certainly it would remain on your table. He

would, nevertheless, 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.

Unless he changed his sentiments, he would oppose the commitment.

Mr. Burke (of S.C.) thought gentlemen were paying attention to what

did not deserve it. The men in the gallery had come here to meddle in

a business with which they have nothing to do; they were volunteering

it in the cause of others, who neither expected nor desired it. He had

a respect for the body of Quakers, but, nevertheless, he did not

believe they had more virtue, or religion, than other people, nor

perhaps so much, if they were examined to the bottom, notwithstanding

their outward pretences. If their petition is to be noticed, Congress

ought to wait till counter applications were made, and then they might

have the subject more fairly before them. The rights of the Southern

States ought not to be threatened, and their property endangered, to

please people who were to be unaffected by the consequences.

Mr. Hartley (of Penn.) thought the memorialists did not deserve to be

aspersed for their conduct, if influenced by motives of benignity,

they solicited the Legislature of the Union to repel, as far as 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's. But it is not for Congress to refuse to hear the

applications of their fellow-citizens, while those applications

contain nothing unconstitutional or offensive. What is the object of

the address before us? It is intended to bring before this House a

subject of great importance to the cause of humanity; there are

certain facts to be enquired into, and the memorialists are ready to

give all the information in their power; they are waiting, at a great

distance from their homes, and wish to return; if, then, it will be

proper to commit the petition to-morrow, it will be equally proper

to-day, for it is conformable to our practice, beside, it will tend to

their conveniency.

Mr. Lawrance, (of N.Y.) The Gentleman from South Carolina says, the

petitioners are of a society not known in the laws or Constitution.

Sir, in all our acts, as well as in the Constitution, we have noticed

this Society; or why is it that we admit them to affirm, in cases

where others are called upon to swear? If we pay this attention to

them, in one instance, what good reason is there for condemning them

in another? I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Stone,) carries

his apprehensions too far, when he fears that negro-property will fall

in value, by the suppression of the slave-trade: not that I suppose it

immediately in the power of Congress to abolish a traffic which is a

disgrace to human nature; but it appears to me, that, if the

importation was crushed, the value of a slave would be increased

instead of diminished; however, considerations of this kind have

nothing to do with the present question; gentlemen may acquiesce in

the commitment of the memorial, without pledging themselves to support

its object.

Mr. Jackson, (of Ga.) I differ much in opinion with the gentleman last

up. 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 so 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. But,

sir, is the whole morality of the United States confined to the

Quakers? Are they the only people whose feelings are to be consulted

on this occasion? Is it to them we owe our present happiness? Was it

they who formed the Constitution? Did they, by their arms, or

contributions, establish our independence? I believe they were

generally opposed to that measure. Why, then, on their application,

shall we injure men, who, at the risk of their lives and fortunes,

secured to the community their liberty and property? If Congress pay

any uncommon degree of attention to their petition, it will furnish

just ground of alarm to the Southern States. But, why do these men set

themselves up, in such a particular manner, against slavery? Do they

understand the rights of mankind, and the disposition of Providence

better than others? If they were to consult that Book which claims our

regard, they will find that slavery is not only allowed, but

commended. Their Saviour, who possessed more benevolence and

commiseration than they pretend to, has allowed of it. And if they

fully examine the subject, they will find that slavery has been no

novel doctrine since the days of Cain. But be these things as they

may, I hope the house will order the petition to lie on the table, in

order to prevent alarming our Southern brethren.

Mr. Sedgwick, (of Mass.) If it was a serious question, whether the

Memorial should be committed or not, I would not urge it at this time;

but that cannot be a question for a moment, if we consider our

relative situation with the people. A number of men,--who are

certainly very respectable, and of whom, as a society, it may be said

with truth, that they conform their moral conduct to their religious

tenets, as much as any people in the whole community,--come forward

and tell you, that you may effect two objects by the exercise of a

Constitutional authority which will give great satisfaction; on the

one hand you may acquire revenue, and on the other, restrain a

practice productive of great evil. Now, setting aside the religious

motives which influenced their application, have they not a right, as

citizens, to give their opinion of public measures? For my part I do

not apprehend that any State, or any considerable number of

individuals in any State, will be seriously alarmed at the commitment

of the petition, from a fear that Congress intend to exercise an

unconstitutional authority, in order to violate their rights; I

believe there is not a wish of the kind entertained by any member of

this body. How can gentlemen hesitate then to pay that respect to a

memorial which it is entitled to, according to the ordinary mode of

procedure in business? Why shall we defer doing that till to-morrow,

which we can do to-day? for the result, I apprehend, will be the same

in either case.

Mr. Smith, (of S.C.) The question, I apprehend, is, whether we will

take the petition up for a second reading, and not whether it shall be

committed? Now, I oppose this, because it is contrary to our usual

practice, and does not allow gentlemen time to consider of the merits

of the prayer; perhaps some gentlemen may think it improper to commit

it to so large a committee as has been mentioned; a variety of causes

may be supposed to show that such a hasty decision is improper;

perhaps the prayer of it is improper. If I understood it right, on its

first reading, though, to be sure, I did not comprehend perfectly all

that the petition contained, it 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 the 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. Boudinot, (of N.J.) It has been said that the Quakers have no

right to interfere in this business; I am surprised to hear this

doctrine advanced, after it has been so lately contended, and settled,

that the people have a right to assemble and petition for redress of

grievances; it is not because the petition comes from the society of

Quakers that I am in favor of the commitment, but because it comes

from citizens of the United States, who are as equally concerned in

the welfare and happiness of their country as others. There certainly

is no foundation for the apprehensions which seem to prevail in

gentlemen's minds. If the petitioners were so uninformed as to suppose

that congress could be guilty of a violation of the constitution, yet,

I trust we know our duty better than to be led astray by an

application from any man, or set of men whatever. I do not consider

the merits of the main question to be before us; it will be time

enough to give our opinions upon that, when the committee have

reported. If it is in our power, by recommendation, or any other way,

to put a stop to the slave-trade in America, I do not doubt of its

policy; but how far the constitution will authorize us to attempt to

depress it, will be a question well worthy of our consideration.

Mr. Sherman (of Conn.) 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 were the powers of the general government, in the case doubted by

the legislature of New York.

Mr. Gerry (of Mass.) thought gentlemen were out of order in entering

upon the merits of the main question at this time, when they were

considering the expediency of committing the petition; he should,

therefore, now follow them further in that track than barely to

observe, that it was the right of the citizens to apply for redress,

in every case they conceived themselves aggrieved in; and it was the

duty of congress to afford redress as far as in their power. That

their Southern brethren had been betrayed into the slave-trade by the

first settlers, was to be lamented; they were not to be reflected on

for not viewing this subject in a different light, the prejudice of

education is eradicated with difficulty; but he thought nothing would

excuse the general government for not exerting itself to prevent, as

far as they constitutionally could, the evils resulting from such

enormities as were alluded to by the petitioners; and the same

considerations induced him highly to commend the part the society of

Friends had taken; it was the cause of humanity they had interested

themselves in, and he wished, with them, to see measures pursued by

every nation, to wipe off the indelible stain which the slave-trade

had brought upon all who were concerned in it.

Mr. Madison (of Va.) thought the question before the committee was no

otherwise important than as gentlemen made it so by their serious

opposition. Did they permit the commitment of the Memorial, as a

matter of course, no notice would be taken of it out of doors; it

could never be blown up into a decision of the question respecting the

discouragement of the African slave-trade, nor alarm the owners with

an apprehension that the general government were about to abolish

slavery in all the States; such things are not contemplated by any

gentleman; but, to appearance, they decide the question more against

themselves than would be the case if it was determined on its real

merits, because gentlemen may be disposed to vote for the commitment

of a petition, without any intention of supporting the prayer of it.

Mr. White (of Va.) would not have seconded the motion, if he had

thought it would have brought on a lengthy debate. He conceived that a

business of this kind ought to be decided without much discussion; it

had constantly been the practice of the house, and he did not suppose

there was any reason for a deviation.

Mr. Page (of Va.) said, if the memorial had been presented by any

individual, instead of the respectable body it was, he should have

voted in favor of a commitment, because it was the duty of the

legislature to attend to subjects brought before them by their

constituents; if, upon inquiry, it was discovered to be improper to

comply with the prayer of the petitioners, he would say so, and they

would be satisfied.

Mr. Stone (of Md.) thought the business ought to be left to take its

usual course; by the rules of the house, it was expressly declared,

that petitions, memorials, and other papers, addressed to the house,

should not be debated or decided on the day they were first read.

Mr. Baldwin (of Ga.) felt at a loss to account why precipitation was

used on this occasion, contrary to the customary usage of the house;

he had not heard a single reason advanced in favor of it. To be sure

it was said the petitioners are a respectable body of men--he did not

deny it--but, certainly, gentlemen did not suppose they were paying

respect to them, or to the house, when they urged such a hasty

procedure; anyhow it was contrary to his idea of respect, and the idea

the house had always expressed, when they had important subjects under

consideration; and, therefore, he should be against the motion. He was

afraid that there was really a little volunteering in this business,

as it had been termed by the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Huntington (of Conn.) considered the petitioners as much

disinterested as any person in the United States; he was persuaded

they had an aversion to slavery; yet they were not singular in this,

others had the same; and he hoped when congress took up the subject,

they would go as far as possible to prohibit the evil complained of.

But he thought that would better be done by considering it in the

light of revenue. When the committee of the whole, on the finance

business, came to the ways and means, it might properly be taken into

consideration, without giving any ground for alarm.

Mr. Tucker, (of S.C.) I have no doubt on my mind respecting what ought

to be done on this occasion; so far from committing the memorial, we

ought to dismiss it without further notice. What is the purport of the

memorial? It is plainly this; to reprobate a particular kind of

commerce, in a moral view, and to request the interposition of

congress to effect its abrogation. But congress have 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 it will 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 towards 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 any where proper, it is

there. I look upon the address then to be ill-judged, however good the

intention of the framers.

Mr. Smith (of S.C.) claimed it as a right, that the petition should

lay over till to-morrow.

Mr. Boudinor (of N.J.) said it was not unusual to commit petitions on

the day they were presented; and the rules of the house admitted the

practice, by the qualification which followed the positive order, that

petitions should not be decided on the day they were first read,

"unless where the house shall direct otherwise."

Mr. Smith (of S.C.) declared his intention of calling the yeas and

nays, if gentlemen persisted in pressing the question.

Mr. Clymer (of Penn.) hoped the motion would be withdrawn for the

present, and the business taken up in course to-morrow; because,

though he respected the memorialists, he also respected order and the

situation of the members.

Mr. Fitzsimons (of Penn.) did not recollect whether he moved or

seconded the motion, but if he had, he should not withdraw it on

account of the threat of calling the yeas and nays.

Mr. Baldwin (of Ga.) hoped the business would be conducted with temper

and moderation, and that gentlemen would concede and pass the subject

over a day at least.

Mr. Smith (of S.C.) had no idea of holding out a threat to any

gentleman. If the declaration of an intention to call the yeas and

nays was viewed by gentlemen in that light, he would withdraw that

call.

Mr. White (of Va.) hereupon withdrew his motion. And the address was

ordered to lie on the table.

FEBRUARY 12th, 1790.

The following memorial was presented and read:

"To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: The

Memorial of the Pennsylvania Society for promoting the abolition of

slavery, the relief of free negroes unlawfully held in bondage, and

the improvement of the condition of the African race, respectfully

showeth: That from a regard for the happiness of mankind, an

association was formed several years since in this State, by a number

of her citizens, of various religious denominations, for promoting the

abolition of slavery, and for the relief of those unlawfully held in

bondage. A just and acute conception of the true principles of

liberty, as it spread through the land, produced accessions to their

numbers, many friends to their cause, and a legislative co-operation

with their views, which, by the blessing of Divine Providence, have

been successfully directed to the relieving from bondage a large

number of their fellow creatures of the African race. They have also

the satisfaction to observe, that, in consequence of that spirit of

philanthropy and genuine liberty which is generally diffusing its

beneficial influence, similar institutions are forming at home and

abroad. That mankind 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 the 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 distinction of

color, to all descriptions of people, so they indulge themselves in

the pleasing expectation, 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 birth-right of all men, and influenced by

the strong ties of humanity and the principles of their institution,

your memorialists conceived themselves bound to use all justifiable

endeavors to loosen the bands 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, amidst 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 towards 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.

"BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, _President_.

"PHILADELPHIA, _February_ 3, 1790."

Mr. Hartley (of Penn.) then called up the memorial presented

yesterday, from the annual meeting of Friends at Philadelphia, for a

second reading; whereupon the same was read a second time, and moved

to be committed.

Mr. Tucker (of S.C.) was sorry the petition had a second reading as he

conceived it contained an unconstitutional request, and from that

consideration he wished it thrown aside. He feared the commitment of

it would be a very alarming circumstance to the Southern States; for

if the object was to engage Congress in an unconstitutional measure,

it would be considered as an interference with their rights, the

people would become very uneasy under the government, and lament that

they ever put additional powers into their hands. He was surprised to

see another memorial on the same subject and that signed by a man who

ought to have known the constitution better. He thought it a

mischievous attempt, as it respected the persons in whose favor it was

intended. It would buoy them up with hopes, without a foundation, and

as they could not reason on the subject, as more enlightened men

would, they might be led to do what they would be punished for, and

the owners of them, in their own defence, would be compelled to

exercise over them a severity they were not accustomed to. Do these

men expect a general emancipation of slaves by law? This would never

be submitted to by the Southern States without a civil war. Do they

mean to purchase their freedom? He believed their money would fall

short of the price. But how is it they are more concerned in this

business than others? Are they the only persons who possess religion

and morality? If the people are not so exemplary, certainly they will

admit the clergy are; why then do we not find them uniting in a body,

praying us to adopt measures for the promotion of religion and piety,

or any moral object? They know it would be an improper interference;

and to say the best of this memorial, it is an act of imprudence,

which he hoped would receive no countenance from the house.

Mr. Seney (of Md.) denied that there was anything unconstitutional in

the memorial, at least, if there was, it had escaped his attention,

and he should be obliged to the gentleman to point it out. Its only

object was, that congress should exercise their constitutional

authority, to abate the horrors of slavery, as far as they could:

Indeed, he considered that all altercation on the subject of

commitment was at an end, as the house had impliedly determined

yesterday that it should be committed.

Mr. Burke (of S.C.) saw the disposition of the house, and he feared it

would be refered to a committee, maugre all their opposition; but he

must insist that it prayed for an unconstitutional measure. Did it not

desire congress to interfere and abolish the slave-trade, while the

constitution expressly stipulated that congress should exercise no

such power? He was certain the commitment would sound in alarm, and

blow the trumpet of sedition in the Southern States. He was sorry to

see the petitioners paid more attention to than the constitution;

however, he would do his duty, and oppose the business totally; and if

it was referred to a committee, as mentioned yesterday, consisting of

a member from each State, and he was appointed, he would decline

serving.

Mr. Scott, (of Penn.) I can't entertain a doubt but the memorial duty

particularly assigned to us by that instrument, and I hope we may be

inclined to take it into consideration. We can, at present, lay our

hands upon a small duty of ten dollars. I would take this, and if it

is all we can do, we must be content. But I am sorry that the framers

of the constitution did not go farther and enable us to interdict it

for good and all; for I look upon the slave-trade to be one of the

most abominable things on earth; and if there was neither God nor

devil, I should oppose it upon the principles of humanity and the law

of nature. I cannot, for my part, conceive how any person can be said

to acquire a property in another; is it by virtue of conquest? What

are the rights of conquest? Some have dared to advance this monstrous

principle, that the conqueror is absolute master of his conquest; that

he may dispose of it as his property, and treat it as he pleases; but

enough of those who reduce men to the state of transferable goods, or

use them like beasts of burden; who deliver them up as the property or

patrimony of another man. Let us argue on principles countenanced by

reason and becoming humanity; the petitioners view the subject in a

religious light, but I do not stand in need of religious motives to

induce me to reprobate the traffic in human flesh; other

considerations weigh with me to support the commitment of the

memorial, and to support every constitutional measure likely to bring

about its total abolition. Perhaps, in our legislative capacity, we

can go no further than to impose a duty of ten dollars, but I do not

know how far I might go, if I was one of the judges of the United

States, and those people were to come before me and claim their

emancipation; but I am sure I would go as far as I could.

Mr. Jackson (of Ga.) differed with the gentleman last up, and supposed

the master had a qualified property in his slave; he said the contrary

doctrine would go to the destruction of every species of personal

service. The gentleman said he did not stand in need of religion to

induce him to reprobate slavery, but if he is guided by that evidence,

which the Christian system is founded upon, he will find that religion

is not against it; he will see, from Genesis to Revelation, the

current setting strong that way. There never was a government on the

face of the earth, but what permitted slavery. The purest sons of

freedom in the Grecian republics, the citizens of Athens and

Lacedaemon all held slaves. On this principle the nations of Europe

are associated; it is the basis of the feudal system. But suppose all

this to have been wrong, let me ask the gentleman, if it is policy to

bring forward a business at this moment, likely to light up a flame of

civil discord, for the people of the Southern States will resist one

tyranny as soon as another; the other parts of the continent may bear

them down by force of arms, but they will never suffer themselves to

be divested of their property without a struggle. The gentleman says,

if he was a federal judge, he does not know to what length he would go

in emancipating these people; but, I believe his judgment would be of

short duration in Georgia; perhaps even the existence of such a judge

might be in danger.

Mr. Sherman (of Conn.) could see no difficulty in committing the

memorial; because 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.

Mr. Baldwin (of Ga.) was sorry the subject had ever been brought

before Congress, because it was a delicate nature, as it respected

some of the States. Gentlemen who had been present at the formation of

this Constitution, could not avoid the recollection of the pain and

difficulty which the subject caused in that body; the members from the

Southern States were so tender upon this point, that they had well

nigh broken up without coming to any determination; however, from the

extreme desire of preserving the Union, and obtaining an efficient

government, they were induced mutually, to concede, and the

Constitution jealously guarded what they agreed to. If gentlemen look

over the footsteps of that body, they will find the greatest degree of

caution used to imprint them, so as not to be easily eradicated; but

the moment we go to jostle on that ground, said he, I fear we shall

feel it tremble under our feet. Congress have no power to interfere

with the importation of slaves, beyond what is given in the 9th

section of the first article of the Constitution; every thing else is

interdicted to them in the strongest terms. If we examine the

Constitution, we shall find the expressions, relative to this subject,

cautiously expressed, and more punctiliously guarded than any other

part. "The migration or importation of such persons, shall not be

prohibited by Congress." But lest this should not have secured the

object sufficiently, it is declared in the same section, "That no

capitation or direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the

census;" this was intended to prevent Congress from laying any special

tax upon negro slaves, as they might, in this way, so burthen the

possessors of them, as to induce a general emancipation. If we go on

to the 5th article, we shall find the 1st and 5th clauses of the 9th

section of the 1st article restrained from being altered before the

year 1808.

Gentlemen have said, that this petition does not pray for an abolition

of the slave-trade; I think, sir, it prays for nothing else, and

therefore we have no more to do with it, than if it prayed us to

establish an order of nobility, or a national religion.

Mr. Sylvester of (N.Y.) said that he had always been in the habit of

respecting the society called Quakers; he respected them for their

exertions in the cause of humanity, but he thought the present was not

a time to enter into a consideration of the subject, especially as he

conceived it to be a business in the province of the State

legislature.

Mr. Lawrance of (of N.Y.) observed that the subject would undoubtedly

come under the consideration of the House; and he thought, that as it

was now before them, that the present time was as proper as any; he

was therefore for committing the memorial; and when the prayer of it

had been properly examined, they could see how far congress may

constitutionally interfere; as they knew the limits of their power on

this, as well as on every other occasion, there was no just

apprehension to be entertained that they would go beyond them.

Mr. Smith (of S.C.) insisted that it was not in the power of the House

to grant the prayer of the petition, which went to the total

abolishment of the slave trade, and it was therefore unnecessary to

commit it. He observed, that in the Southern States, difficulties had

arisen on adopting the Constitution, inasmuch as it was apprehended,

that Congress might take measures under it for abolishing the

slave-trade.

Perhaps the petitioners, when they applied to this house, did not

think their object unconstitutional, but now they are told that it is,

they will be satisfied with the answer, and press it no further. If

their object had been for Congress to lay a duty of ten dollars per

head on the importation of slaves, they would have said so, but that

does not appear to have been the case; the commitment of the petition,

on that ground, cannot be contended; if they will not be content with

that, shall it be committed to investigate facts? The petition speaks

of none; for what purpose then shall it be committed? If gentlemen can

assign no good reason for the measure, they will not support it, when

they are told that it will create great jealousies and alarm in the

Southern States; for I can assure them, that there is no point on

which they are more jealous and suspicious, than on a business with

which they think the government has nothing to do.

When we entered into this Confederacy, we did it from political, not

from moral motives, and I do not think my constituents want to learn

morals from the petitioners; I do not believe they want improvement in

their moral system; if they do, they can get it at home.

The gentleman from Georgia, has justly stated the jealousy of the

Southern States. On entering into this government, they apprehended

that the other States, not knowing the necessity the citizens of the

Southern States were under to hold this species of property, would,

from motives of humanity and benevolence, be led to vote for a general

emancipation; and had they not seen that the Constitution provided

against the effect of such a disposition, I may be bold to say, they

never would have adopted it. And notwithstanding all the calmness with

which some gentlemen have viewed the subject, they will find, that the

discussion alone will create great alarm. We have been told, that if

the discussion will create alarm, we ought to have avoided it, by

saying nothing; but it was not for that purpose that we were sent

here, we look upon this measure as an attack upon the palladium of the

property of our country; it is therefore our duty to oppose it by

every means in our power. Gentlemen should consider that when we

entered into a political connexion with the other States, that this

property was there; it was acquired under a former government,

conformably to the laws and Constitution; therefore anything that will

tend to deprive them of that property, must be an _ex post facto_ law,

and as such is forbid by our political compact.

I said the States would never have entered into the confederation,

unless their property had been guaranteed to them, for such is the

state of agriculture in that country, that without slaves it must be

depopulated. Why will these people then make use of arguments to

induce the slave to turn his hand against his master? We labor under

difficulties enough from the ravages of the late war. A gentleman can

hardly come from that country, with a servant or two, either to this

place or Philadelphia, but what there are persons trying to seduce his

servants to leave him; and, when they have done this, the poor

wretches are obliged to rob their master in order to obtain a

subsistence; all those, therefore, who are concerned in this

seduction, are accessaries to the robbery.

The reproaches which they cast upon the owners of negro property, is

charging them with the want of humanity; I believe the proprietors are

persons of as much humanity as any part of the continent and are as

conspicuous for their good morals as their neighbors. It was said

yesterday, that the Quakers were a society known to the laws, and the

Constitution, but they are no more so than other religious societies;

they stand exactly in the same situation; their memorial, therefore,

relates to a matter in which they are no more interested than any

other sect, and can only be considered as a piece of advice; it is

customary to refer a piece of advice to a committee, but if it is

supposed to pray for what they think a moral purpose, is that

sufficient to induce us to commit it? What may appear a moral virtue

in their eyes, may not be so in reality. I have heard of a sect of

Shaking Quakers, who, I presume, suppose their tenets of a moral

tendency; I am informed one of them forbids to intermarry, yet in

consequence of their shakings and concussions, you may see them with a

numerous offspring about them. Now, if these people were to petition

Congress to pass a law prohibiting matrimony, I ask, would gentlemen

agree to refer such a petition? I think if they would reject one of

that nature, as improper, they ought also to reject this.

Mr. Page (of Va.) was in favor of the commitment; he hoped that the

designs of the respectable memorialists would not be stopped at the

threshold, in order to preclude a fair discussion of the prayer of the

memorial. He observed that gentlemen had founded their arguments upon

a misrepresentation; for the object of the memorial was not declared

to be the total abolition of the slave trade: but that Congress would

consider, whether it be not in reality within their power to exercise

justice and mercy, which, if adhered to, they cannot doubt must

produce the abolition of the slave trade. If then the prayer contained

nothing unconstitutional, he trusted the meritorious effort would not

be frustrated. With respect to the alarm that was apprehended, he

conjectured there was none; but there might be just cause, if the

memorial was not taken into consideration. He placed himself in the

case of a slave, and said, that, 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

was expected great good would result to every class of citizens) had

shut their ears against the voice of humanity, and he should despair

of any alleviation of the miseries he and his posterity had in

prospect; if any thing could induce him to rebel, it must be a stroke

like this, impressing on his mind all the horrors of despair. But if

he was told, that application was made in his behalf, and that

Congress were willing to hear what could be urged in favor of

discouraging the practice of importing his fellow-wretches, he would

trust in their justice and humanity, and wait the decision patiently.

He presumed that these unfortunate people would reason in the same

way; and he, therefore, conceived the most likely way to prevent

danger, was to commit the petition. He lived in a State which had the

misfortune of having in her bosom a great number of slaves, he held

many of them himself, and was as much interested in the business, he

believed, as any gentleman in South Carolina or Georgia, yet, if he

was determined to hold them in eternal bondage, he should feel no

uneasiness or alarm on account of the present measure, because he

should rely upon the virtue of Congress, that they would not exercise

any unconstitutional authority.

Mr. Madison (of Va.) The debate has taken a serious turn, and it will

be owing to this alone if an alarm is created; for had the memorial

been treated in the usual way, it would have been considered as a

matter of course, and a report might have been made, so as to have

given general satisfaction.

If there was the slightest tendency by the commitment to break in upon

the constitution, he would object to it; but he did not see upon what

ground such an event was to be apprehended. The petition prayed, in

general terms, for the interference of congress, so far as they were

constitutionally authorized; but even if its prayer was, in some

degree, unconstitutional, it might be committed, as was the case on

Mr. Churchman's petition, one part of which was supposed to apply for

an unconstitutional interference by the general government.

He admitted that congress was restricted by the constitution from

taking measures to abolish the slave-trade; yet there were a variety

of ways by which they could countenance the abolition, and they might

make some regulations respecting the introduction of them into the new

States, to be formed out of the Western Territory, different from what

they could in the old settled States. He thought the object well

worthy of consideration.

Mr. Gerry (of Mass.) thought the interference of congress fully

compatible with the constitution, and could not help lamenting the

miseries to which the tribes of Africa were exposed by this inhuman

commerce; and said that he never contemplated the subject, without

reflecting what his own feelings would be, in case himself, his

children, or friends, were placed in the same deplorable

circumstances. He then adverted to the flagrant acts of cruelty which

are committed in carrying on that traffic; and asked whether it can be

supposed, that congress has no power to prevent such transactions? He

then referred to the constitution, and pointed out the restrictions

laid on the general government respecting the importation of slaves.

It was not, he presumed, in the contemplation of any gentleman in this

house to violate that part of the constitution; but that we have a

right to regulate this business, is as clear as that we have any

rights whatever; nor has the contrary been shown by any person who has

spoken on the occasion. Congress can, agreeable to the constitution,

lay a duty of ten dollars on imported slaves; they may do this

immediately. He made a calculation of the value of the slaves in the

Southern States, and supposed they might be worth ten millions of

dollars; congress have a right, if they see proper, to make a proposal

to the Southern States to purchase the whole of them, and their

resources in the Western Territory may furnish them with means. He did

not intend to suggest a measure of this kind, he only instanced these

particulars, to show that congress certainly have a right to

intermeddle in the business. He thought that no objection had been

offered, of any force, to prevent the commitment of the memorial.

Mr. Boudinot (of N.J.) had carefully examined the petition, and found

nothing like what was complained of by gentlemen, contained in it; he,

therefore, hoped they would withdraw their opposition, and suffer it

to be committed.

Mr. Smith (of S.C.) said, that as the petitioners had particularly

prayed congress to take measures for the annihilation of the slave

trade, and that was admitted on all hands to be beyond their power,

and as the petitioners would not be gratified by a tax of ten dollars

per head, which was all that was within their power, there was, of

consequence, no occasion for committing it.

Mr. Stone (of Md.) thought this memorial a thing of course; for there

never was a society, of any considerable extent, which did not

interfere with the concerns of other people, and this kind of

interference, whenever it has happened, has never failed to deluge the

country in blood: on this principle he was opposed to the commitment.

The question on the commitment being about to be put, the yeas and

nays were called for, and are as follows:--

Yeas.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Brown, Cadwallader, Clymer,

Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gale, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Griffin,

Grout, Hartley, Hathorne, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Lee, Leonard,

Livermore, Madison, Moore, Muhlenberg, Pale, Parker, Partridge,

Renssellaer, Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick, Seney, Sherman, Sinnickson,

Smith of Maryland, Sturges, Thatcher, Trumbull, Wadsworth, White, and

Wynkoop--43.

Noes--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Bourke, Coles, Huger, Jackson, Mathews,

Sylvester, Smith of S.C., Stone, and Tucker--11.

Whereupon it was determined in the affirmative; and on motion, the

petition of the Society of Friends, at New York, and the memorial from

the Pennsylvania Society, for the abolition of slavery, were also

referred to a committee.--LLOYD'S DEBATES.

_Debate on Committee's Report, March_, 1790.

ELIOT'S DEBATES.

Mr. Tucker moved to modify the first paragraph by striking out all the

words after the word opinion, and to insert the following: that the

several memorials proposed to the consideration of this house, a

subject on which its interference would be unconstitutional, and even

its deliberations highly injurious to some of the States in the Union.

Mr. Jackson rose and observed, that he had been silent on the subject

of the reports coming before the committee, because he wished the

principles of the resolutions to be examined fairly, and to be decided

on their true grounds. He was against the propositions generally, and

would examine the policy, the justice and the use of them, and he

hoped, if he could make them appear in the same light to others as

they did to him by fair argument, that the gentlemen in opposition

were not so determined in their opinions as not to give up their

present sentiments.

With respect to the policy of the measure, the situation of the slaves

here, their situation in their native States, and the disposal of them

in case of emancipation, should be considered. That slavery was an

evil habit, he did not mean to controvert; but that habit was already

established, and there were peculiar situations in countries which

rendered that habit necessary. Such situations the States of South

Carolina and Georgia were in--large tracts of the most fertile lands

on the continent remained uncultivated for the want of population. It

was frequently advanced on the floor of Congress, how unhealthy those

climates were, and how impossible it was for northern constitutions to

exist there. What, he asked, is to be done with this uncultivated

territory? Is it to remain a waste? Is the rice trade to be banished

from our coasts? Are congress willing to deprive themselves of the

revenue arising from that trade, and which is daily increasing, and to

throw this great advantage into the hands of other countries?

Let us examine the use or the benefit of the resolutions contained in

the report. I call upon gentlemen to give me one single instance in

which they can be of service. They are of no use to congress. The

powers of that body are already defined, and those powers cannot be

amended, confirmed or diminished by ten thousand resolutions. Is not

that the guide and rule of this legislature. A multiplicity of laws is

reprobated in any society, and tend but to confound and perplex. How

strange would a law appear which was to confirm a law; and how much

more strange must it appear for this body to pass resolutions to

confirm the constitution under which they sit! This is the case with

others of the resolutions.

A gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Stone) very properly observed, that the

Union had received the different States with all their ill habits

about them. This was one of these habits established long before the

constitution, and could not now be remedied. He begged congress to

reflect on the number on the continent who were opposed to this

constitution, and on the number which yet remained in the Southern

States. The violation of this compact they would seize on with

avidity; they would make a handle of it to cover their designs against

the government, and many good federalists, who would be injured by the

measure, would be induced to join them: his heart was truly federal,

and it had always been so, and he wished those designs frustrated. He

begged congress to beware before they went too far: he called on them

to attend to the interest of two whole States, as well as to the

memorials of a society of quakers, who came forward to blow the

trumpet of sedition, and to destroy that constitution which they had

not in the least contributed by personal service or supply to

establish.

He seconded Mr. Tucker's motion.

Mr. Smith (of S.C.) said, the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr.

Gerry,) had declared that it was the opinion of the select committee,

of which he was a member, that the memorial of the Pennsylvania

society, required congress to violate the constitution. It was not

less astonishing to see Dr. Franklin taking the lead in a business

which looks so much like a persecution of the Southern inhabitants,

when he recollected the parable he had written some time ago, with a

view of showing the immorality of one set of men persecuting others

for a difference of opinion. The parable was to this effect: an old

traveller, hungry and weary, applied to the patriarch Abraham for a

night's lodging. In conversation, Abraham discovered that the stranger

differed with him on religious points, and turned him out of doors. In

the night God appeared unto Abraham, and said, where is the stranger?

Abraham answered, I found that he did not worship the true God, and so

I turned him out of doors. The Almighty thus rebuked the patriarch:

have I borne with him three-score and ten years, and couldst thou not

bear with him one night? Has the Almighty, said Mr. Smith, borne with

us for more than three-score years and ten: He has even made our

country opulent, and shed the blessings of affluence and prosperity on

our land, notwithstanding all its slaves, and must we now be ruined

on account of the tender consciences of a few scrupulous individuals

who differ from us on this point?

Mr. Boudinot agreed with the general doctrines of Mr. S., but could

not agree that the clause in the constitution relating to the want of

power in congress to prohibit the importation of such persons as any

of the States, _now existing_, shall think proper to admit, prior to

the year 1808, and authorizing a tax or duty on such importation not

exceeding ten dollars for each person, did not extend to negro slaves.

Candor required that he should acknowledge that this was the express

design of the constitution, and therefore congress could not interfere

in prohibiting the importation or promoting the emancipation of them,

prior to that period. Mr. Boudinot observed, that he was well informed

that the tax or duty of ten dollars was provided, instead of the five

per cent. ad valorem, and was so expressly understood by all parties

in the convention; that therefore it was the interest and duty of

congress to impose this tax, or it would not be doing justice to the

States, or equalizing the duties throughout the Union. If this was

not done, merchants might bring their whole capitals into this branch

of trade, and save paying any duties whatever. Mr. Boudinot observed,

that the gentleman had overlooked the prophecy of St. Peter, where he

foretells that among other damnable heresies, "Through covetousness

shall they with feigned words make merchandize of you."

[NOTE.--This petition, with others of a similar object, was committed

to a select committee; that committee made a report; the report was

referred to a committee of the whole house, and discussed on four

successive days; it was then reported to the House with amendments,

and by the House ordered to be inscribed in its Journals, and then

laid on the table.

That report, as amended in committee, is in the following words: The

committee to whom were referred sundry memorials from the people

called Quakers, and also a memorial from the Pennsylvania Society for

promoting the abolition of slavery, submit the following report, (as

amended in committee of the whole.)

"First: That the migration or importation of such persons as any of

the States now existing shall think proper to admit, cannot be

prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808."

"Secondly: That Congress have no power to interfere in the

emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, within any of the

States; it remaining with the several States alone to provide any

regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require."

"Thirdly: 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 states admitting such

importations."

"Fourthly: That Congress have also authority to prohibit foreigners

from fitting out vessels in any part of the United States for

transporting persons from Africa to any foreign port."]

ADDRESS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY

SOCIETY TO THE Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the United

States.

At the Tenth Anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, held in

the city of New York, May 7th, 1844,--after grave deliberation, and a

long and earnest discussion,--it was decided, by a vote of nearly

three to one of the members present, that fidelity to the cause of

human freedom, hatred of oppression, sympathy for those who are held

in chains and slavery in this republic, and allegiance to God, require

that the existing national compact should be instantly dissolved; that

secession from the government is a religious and political duty; that

the motto inscribed on the banner of Freedom should be, NO UNION WITH

SLAVEHOLDERS; that it is impracticable for tyrants and the enemies of

tyranny to coalesce and legislate together for the preservation of

human rights, or the promotion of the interests of Liberty; and that

revolutionary ground should be occupied by all those who abhor the

thought of doing evil that good may come, and who do not mean to

compromise the principles of Justice and humanity.

A decision involving such momentous consequences, so well calculated

to startle the public mind, so hostile to the established order of

things, demands of us, as the official representatives of the

American Society, a statement of the reasons which led to it. This is

due not only to the Society, but also to the country and the world.

It is declared by the American people to be a self-evident truth,

"that all men are created equal; that they are endowed BY THEIR

CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are _life,_

LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness." It is further maintained by

them, that "all governments derive their just powers from the consent

of the governed;" that "whenever any form of government becomes

destructive of human rights, it is the right of the people to alter or

to abolish it, and institute a new government, laying its foundation

on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them

shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." These

doctrines the patriots of 1776 sealed with their blood. They would

not brook even the menace of oppression. They held that there should

be no delay in resisting at whatever cost or peril, the first

encroachments of power on their liberties. Appealing to the great

Ruler of the universe for the rectitude of their course, they pledged

to each other "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor," to

conquer or perish in their struggle to be free.

For the example which they set to all people subjected to a despotic

sway, and the sacrifices which they made, their descendants cherish

their memories with gratitude, reverence their virtues, honor their

deeds, and glory in their triumphs.

It is not necessary, therefore, for us to prove that a state of

slavery is incompatible with the dictates of reason and humanity; or

that it is lawful to throw off a government which is at war with the

sacred rights of mankind.

We regard this as indeed a solemn crisis, which requires of every man

sobriety of thought, prophetic forecast, independent judgment,

invincible determination, and a sound heart. A revolutionary step is

one that should not be taken hastily, nor followed under the influence

of impulsive imitation. To know what spirit they are of--whether they

have counted the cost of the warfare--what are the principles they

advocate--and how they are to achieve their object--is the first duty

of revolutionists.

But, while circumspection and prudence are excellent qualities in

every great emergency, they become the allies of tyranny whenever they

restrain prompt, bold and decisive action against it.

We charge upon the present national compact, that it was formed at the

expense of human liberty, by a profligate surrender of principle, and

to this hour is cemented with human blood.

We charge upon the American Constitution, that it contains provisions,

and enjoins duties, which make it unlawful for freemen to take the

oath of allegiance to it, because they are expressly designed to favor

a slaveholding oligarchy, and consequently, to make one portion of the

people a prey to another.

We charge upon the existing national government, that it is an

insupportable despotism, wielded by a power which is superior to all

legal and constitutional restraints--equally indisposed and unable to

protect the lives or liberties of the people--the prop and safeguard

of American slavery.

These charges we proceed briefly to establish:

I. It is admitted by all men of intelligence,--or if it be denied in

any quarter, the records of our national history settle the question

beyond doubt,--that the American Union was effected by a guilty

compromise between the free and slaveholding States; in other words,

by immolating the colored population on the altar of slavery, by

depriving the North of equal rights and privileges, and by

incorporating the slave system into the government. In the expressive

and pertinent language of scripture, it was "a covenant with death,

and an agreement with hell"--null and void before God, from the first

hour of its inception--the framers of which were recreant to duty, and

the supporters of which are equally guilty.

It was pleaded at the time of the adoption, it is pleaded now, that,

without such a compromise there could have been no union; that,

without union, the colonies would have become an easy prey to the

mother country; and, hence, that it was an act of necessity,

deplorable indeed when viewed alone, but absolutely indispensable to

the safety of the republic.

To this see reply: The plea is as profligate as the act was

tyrannical. It is the jesuitical doctrine, that the end sanctifies the

means. It is a confession of sin, but the denial of any guilt in its

perpetration. It is at war with the government of God, and subversive

of the foundations of morality. It is to make lies our refuge, and

under falsehood to hide ourselves, so that we may escape the

overflowing scourge. "Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, Judgment

will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet; and the hail

shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the

hiding place." Moreover, "because ye trust in oppression and

perverseness, and stay thereon; therefore this iniquity shall be to

you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose

breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. And he shall break it as the

breaking of the potter's vessel that is broken in pieces; he shall not

spare."

This plea is sufficiently broad to cover all the oppression and

villany that the sun has witnessed in his circuit, since God said,

"Let there be light." It assumes that to be practicable, which is

impossible, namely, that there can be freedom with slavery, union with

injustice, and safety with bloodguiltiness. A union of virtue with

pollution is the triumph of licentiousness. A partnership between

right and wrong, is wholly wrong. A compromise of the principles of

Justice, is the deification of crime.

Better that the American Union had never been formed, than that it

should have been obtained at such a frightful cost! If they were

guilty who fashioned it, but who could not foresee all its frightful

consequences, how much more guilty are they, who, in full view of all

that has resulted from it, clamor for its perpetuity! If it was sinful

at the commencement, to adopt it on the ground of escaping a greater

evil, is it not equally sinful to swear to support it for the same

reason, or until, in process of time, it be purged from its

corruption?

The fact is, the compromise alluded to, instead of effecting a union,

rendered it impracticable; unless by the term union are to understand

the absolute reign of the slaveholding power over the whole country,

to the prostration of Northern rights. In the just use of words, the

American Union is and always has been a sham--an imposture. It is an

instrument of oppression unsurpassed in the criminal history of the

world. How then can it be innocently sustained? It is not certain, it

is not even probable, that if it had not been adopted, the mother

country would have reconquered the colonies. The spirit that would

have chosen danger in preference to crime,--to perish with justice

rather than live with dishonor,--to dare and suffer whatever might

betide, rather than sacrifice the rights of one human being,--could

never have been subjugated by any mortal power. Surely it is paying a

poor tribute to the valor and devotion of our revolutionary fathers in

the cause of liberty, to say that, if they had sternly refused to

sacrifice their principles, they would have fallen an easy prey to the

despotic power of England.

II. The American Constitution is the exponent of the national compact.

We affirm that it is an instrument which no man can innocently bind

himself to support, because its anti-republican and anti-christian

requirements are explicit and peremptory; at least, so explicit that,

in regard to all the clauses pertaining to slavery, they have been

uniformly understood and enforced in the same way, by all the courts

and by all the people; and so peremptory, that no individual

interpretation or authority can set them aside with impunity. It is

not a ball of clay, to be moulded into any shape that party

contrivance or caprice may choose it to assume. It is not a form of

words, to be interpreted in any manner, or to any extent, or for the

accomplishment of any purpose, that individuals in office under it may

determine. _It means precisely what those who framed and adopted it

meant_--NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS, _as a matter of bargain and

compromise_. Even if it can be construed to mean something else,

without violence to its language, such construction is not to be

tolerated _against the wishes of either party_. No just or honest use

of it can be made, in opposition to the plain intention of its

framers, _except to declare the contract at an end, and to refuse to

serve under it_.

To the argument, that the words "slaves" and "slavery" are not to be

found in the Constitution, and therefore that it was never intended to

give any protection or countenance to the slave system, it is

sufficient to reply, that though no such words are contained in that

instrument, other words were used, intelligently and specifically, TO

MEET THE NECESSITIES OF SLAVERY; and that these were adopted _in good

faith, to be observed until a constitutional change could be

effected_. On this point, as to the design of certain provisions, no

intelligent man can honestly entertain a doubt. If it be objected,

that though these provisions were meant to cover slavery, yet, as they

can fairly be interpreted to mean something exactly the reverse, it is

allowable to give to them such an interpretation, _especially as the

cause of freedom will thereby be promoted_--we reply, that this is to

advocate fraud and violence toward one of the contracting parties,

_whose co-operation was secured only by an express agreement and

understanding between them both, in regard to the clauses alluded to_;

and that such a construction, if enforced by pains and penalties,

would unquestionably lead to a civil war, in which the aggrieved party

would justly claim to have been betrayed, and robbed of their

constitutional rights.

Again, if it be said, that those clauses, being immoral, are null and

void--we reply, it is true they are not to be observed; but it is also

true that they are portions of an instrument, the support of which, AS

A WHOLE, is required by oath or affirmation; and, therefore, _because

they are immoral_, and BECAUSE OF THIS OBLIGATION TO ENFORCE

IMMORALITY, no one can innocently swear to support the Constitution.

Again, if it be objected, that the Constitution was formed by the

people of the United States, in order to establish justice, to promote

the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves

and their posterity; and therefore, it is to be so construed as to

harmonize with these objects; we reply, again, that its language is

_not to be interpreted in a sense which neither of the contracting

parties understood_, and which would frustrate every design of their

alliance--to wit, _union at the expense of the colored population of

the country_. Moreover, nothing is more certain than that the preamble

alluded to never included, in the minds of those who framed it, _those

who were then pining in bondage_--for, in that case, a general

emancipation of the slaves would have instantly been proclaimed

throughout the United States. The words, "secure the blessings of

liberty to ourselves and our posterity," assuredly meant only the

white population. "To promote the general welfare," referred to their

own welfare exclusively. "To establish justice," was understood to be

for their sole benefit as slaveholders, and the guilty abettors of

slavery. This is demonstrated by other parts of the same instrument,

and by their own practice under it.

We would not detract aught from what is justly their due; but it is as

reprehensible to give them credit for _what they did not possess_, as

it is to rob them of what is theirs. It is absurd, it is false, it is

an insult to the common sense of mankind, to pretend that the

Constitution was intended to embrace the entire population of the

country under its sheltering wings; or that the parties to it were

actuated by a sense of justice and the spirit of impartial liberty; or

that it needs no alteration, but only a new interpretation, to make it

harmonize with the object aimed at by its adoption. As truly might it

be argued, that because it is asserted in the Declaration of

Independence, that all men are created equal and endowed with an

inalienable right to liberty, therefore none of its signers were

slaveholders, and since its adoption, slavery has been banished from

the American soil! The truth is, our fathers were intent on securing

liberty _to themselves_, without being very scrupulous as to the means

they used to accomplish their purpose. They were not actuated by the

spirit of universal philanthropy; and though in _words_ they

recognized occasionally the brotherhood of the human race, _in

practice_ they continually denied it. They did not blush to enslave a

portion of their fellow-men, and to buy and sell them as cattle in the

market, while they were fighting against the oppression of the mother

country, and boasting of their regard for the rights of man. Why,

then, concede to them virtues which they did not posses? _Why cling to

the falsehood, that they were no respecters of person in the formation

of the government_?

Alas! that they had no more fear of God, no more regard for man, in

their hearts! "The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah [The

North and South] is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood,

and the city full of perverseness; for they say, the Lord hath

forsaken the earth, and the Lord seeth not."

We proceed to a critical examination of the American Constitution, in

its relations to slavery.

In ARTICLE I, Section 9, it is declared--"The migration or importation

of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper

to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior to the year

one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed

on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

In this Section, it will be perceived, the phraseology is so guarded

as not to imply, _ex necessitate_, any criminal intent or inhuman

arrangement; and yet no one has ever had the hardihood or folly to

deny, that it was clearly understood by the contracting parties, to

mean that there should be no interference with the African slave

trade, on the part of the general government, until the year 1808. For

twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution, the citizens of

the United States were to be encouraged and protected in the

prosecution of that infernal traffic--in sacking and burning the

hamlets of Africa--in slaughtering multitudes of the inoffensive

natives on the soil, kidnapping and enslaving a still greater

proportion, crowding them to suffocation in the holds of the slave

ships, populating the Atlantic with their dead bodies, and subjecting

the wretched survivors to all the horrors of unmitigated bondage! This

awful covenant was strictly fulfilled; and though, since its

termination, Congress has declared the foreign slave traffic to be

piracy, yet all Christendom knows that the American flag, instead of

being the terror of the African slavers, has given them the most ample

protection.

The manner in which the 9th Section was agreed to, by the national

convention that formed the constitution, is thus frankly avowed by the

Hon. Luther Martin,[8] who was a prominent member of that body:

[Footnote 8: Speech before the Legislature of Maryland in 1787.]

"The Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion of slavery, (!)

were _very willing to indulge the Southern States_ at least with a

temporary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, provided the Southern

States would, in their turn, _gratify_ them by laying no restriction

on navigation acts; and, after a very little time, the committee, by a

great majority, agreed on a report, _by which the general government

was to be prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves_ for a

limited time; and the restrictive clause relative to navigation acts

was to be omitted."

Behold the iniquity of this agreement! how sordid were the motives

which led to it! what a profligate disregard of justice and humanity,

on the part of those who had solemnly declared the inalienable right

of all men to be free and equal, to be a self-evident truth!

It is due to the national convention to say, that this section was not

adopted "without considerable opposition." Alluding to it, Mr. Martin

observes--

"It was said we had just assumed a place among the independent nations

in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great Britain to

_enslave us_; that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation

of those rights to which God and nature has entitled us, not in

_particular_, but in _common with all the rest of mankind_; that we

had appealed to the Supreme Being for his assistance, as the God of

freedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve the rights

which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now, when we had

scarcely risen from our knees, from supplicating his mercy and

protection in forming our government over a free people, a government

formed pretendedly on the principles of liberty, and for its

preservation,--in that government to have a provision, not only of

putting out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade, even

encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States the power

and influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly and wantonly

sported with the rights of their fellow-creatures, ought to be

considered as a solemn mockery of, and insult to, that God whose

protection we had thus implored, and could not fail to hold us up in

detestation, and render us contemptible to every true friend of

liberty in the world. It was said that national crimes can only be,

and frequently are, punished in this world by _national punishments_,

and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a

national character, sanction, and encouragement, ought to be

considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of

him who is equally the Lord of all, and who views with equal eye the

poor _African slave_ and his _American master!_ [9]

[Footnote 9: How terribly and justly as the guilty nation been

scourged, since these words were spoken, on account of slavery and the

slave trade!]

"It was urged that, by this system, we were giving the general

government full and absolute power to regulate commerce, under which

general power it would have a right to restrain, or totally prohibit,

the slave trade: it must, therefore, appear to the world absurd and

disgraceful to the last degree that we should except from the exercise

of that power the only branch of commerce which is unjustifiable in

its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind. That, on the

contrary, we ought to prohibit expressly, in our Constitution, the

further importation of slaves, and to authorize the general

government, from time to time, to make such regulations as should be

thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of slavery, and

the emancipation of the slaves already in the States. That slavery is

inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a tendency to

destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the

sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates to tyranny and

oppression. It was further urged that, by this system of government,

every State is to be protected both from foreign invasion and from

domestic insurrections; and, from this consideration, it was of the

utmost importance it should have the power to restrain the importation

of slaves, since in proportion as the number of slaves increased in

any State, in the same proportion is the State weakened and exposed to

foreign invasion and domestic insurrection; and by so much less will

it be able to protect itself against either, and therefore by so much,

want aid and be a burden to, the Union.

"It was further said, that, in this system, as we were giving the

general government power, under the idea of national character, or

national interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and have

prohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and passing

insolvent laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary that we

prohibited the government from interfering with the slave trade, than

which nothing could more effect our national honor and interest.

"These reasons influenced me, both in the committee and in the

convention, most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as

it now makes part of the system." [10]

[Footnote 10: Secret Proceedings, p. 61.]

Happy had it been for this nation, had these solemn considerations

been heeded by the framers of the Constitution! But for the sake of

securing some local advantages, they choose to do evil that good may

come, and to make the end sanctify the means. They were willing to

enslave others, that they might secure their own freedom. They did

this deed deliberately, with their eyes open, with all the facts and

consequences arising therefrom before them, in violation of all their

heaven-attested declarations, and in atheistical distrust of the

overruling power of God. "The Eastern States were very willing to

_indulge_ the Southern States" in the unrestricted prosecution of

their piratical traffic, provided in return they could be _gratified_

by no restriction on being laid on navigation acts!!--Had there been

no other provision of the Constitution justly liable to objection,

this one alone rendered the support of that instrument incompatible

with the duties which men owe to their Creator, and to each other. It

was the poisonous infusion in the cup, which, though constituting but

a very slight portion of its contents, perilled the life of every one

who partook of it.

If it be asked to what purpose are these animadversions, since the

clause alluded to has long since expired by its own limitation--we

answer, that, if at any time the foreign slave trade could be

_constitutionally_ prosecuted, it may yet be renewed, under the

Constitution, at the pleasure of Congress, whose prohibitory statute

is liable to be reversed at any moment, in the frenzy of Southern

opposition to emancipation. It is ignorantly supposed that the bargain

was, that the traffic _should cease_ in 1808; but the only thing

secured by it was, the _right_ of Congress (not any obligation) to

prohibit it at that period. If, therefore, Congress had not chosen to

exercise that right, _the traffic might have been prolonged

indefinitely, under the Constitution_. The right to destroy any

particular branch of commerce, implies the right to re-establish it.

True, there is no probability that the African slave trade will ever

again be legalized by the national government; but no credit is due

the framers of the Constitution on this ground; for, while they threw

around it all the sanction and protection of the national character

and power for twenty years, _they set no bounds to its continuance by

any positive constitutional prohibition_.

Again, the adoption of such a clause, and the faithful execution of

it, prove what was meant by the words of the preamble--"to form a more

perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,

provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and

secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our

posterity"--namely, that the parties to the Constitution regarded

only their own rights and interests, and never intended that its

language should be so interpreted as to interfere with slavery, or to

make it unlawful for one portion of the people to enslave another,

_without an express alteration in the instrument, in the manner

therein set forth_. While, therefore, the Constitution remains as it

was originally adopted, they who swear to support it are bound to

comply with all its provisions, as a matter of allegiance. For it

avails nothing to say, that some of those provisions are at war with

the law of God and the rights of man, and therefore are not

obligatory. Whatever may be their character, they are

_constitutionally_, obligatory; and whoever feels that he cannot

execute them, or swear to execute them, without committing sin,

has no other choice left than to withdraw from the government, or to

violate his conscience by taking on his lips an impious promise. The

object of the Constitution is not to define _what is the law of God_,

but WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE--which will is not to be frustrated

by an ingenious moral interpretation, by those whom they have elected

to serve them.

ARTICLE 1, Sect. 2, provides--"Representatives and direct taxes shall

be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within

this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be

determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including

those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not

taxed, _three-fifths of all other persons_."

Here, as in the clause we have already examined, veiled beneath a form

of words as deceitful as it is unmeaning in a truly democratic

government, is a provision for the safety, perpetuity and augmentation

of the slaveholding power--a provision scarcely less atrocious than

that which related to the African slave trade, and almost as

afflictive in its operation--a provision still in force, with no

possibility of its alteration, so long as a majority of the slave

States choose to maintain their slave system--a provision which, at

the present time, enables the South to have twenty-five additional

representatives in Congress on the score of _property_, while the

North is not allowed to have one--a provision which concedes to the

oppressed three-fifths of the political power which is granted to all

others, and then puts this power into the hands of their oppressors,

to be wielded by them for the more perfect security of their tyrannous

authority, and the complete subjugation of the non-slaveholding

States.

Referring to this atrocious bargain, ALEXANDER HAMILTON remarked in

the New York Convention--

"The first thing objected to, is that clause which allows a

representation for three-fifths of the negroes. Much has been said of

the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own:

whether this is _reasoning_, or _declamation_, (!!) I will not presume

to say. It is the _unfortunate_ situation of the Southern States to

have a great part of their population, as well as _property_, in

blacks. The regulation complained of was one result of _the spirit of

accommodation_ which governed the Convention: and without this

_indulgence_, NO UNION COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN FORMED. But, sir,

considering some _peculiar advantages_ which we derive from them, it

is entirely JUST that they should be _gratified_.--The Southern States

possess certain staples, tobacco, rice, indigo, &c.--which must be

_capital_ objects in treaties of commerce with foreign nations; and

the advantage which they necessarily procure in these treaties will be

felt throughout the United states."

If such was the patriotism, such the love of liberty, such the

morality of ALEXANDER HAMILTON, what can be said of the character of

those who were far less conspicuous than himself in securing American

independence, and in framing the American Constitution?

Listen, now, to the questions of JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, respecting the

constitutional clause now under consideration:--