With slavery and the definition of a citizen set the tone for race in america for the next seven decades. The u. S. Capitol society posted hosted this event. Its about one hour. Today, we are going to start with paul polgar, who is a longtime colleague of mine. He started interning with the First Federal congress project a long time ago. He is not sensitive about his age. He is too young to be that. What it seems like it was a long time ago and we were able to see him take some of the things and develop it and work it into his phd dissertation, which is the basis for his first book. A well grounded hope. He teaches at the university of mississippi. We are fortunate to have him coming all the way up here to th d. C. I want to thank the other people who made this a truly National Event with a scope that goes beyond this area code. We have a visitor from california, a good friend of ours, and another wonderful friend from new york city. For some reason, im forgetting your name. I am sorry john. And maurice represents the harvard conservancy. Into ae developing it real destination in Lower Manhattan for a study of the early congresses. Welcome to everybody, whether you came from near or far. [applause] lets welcome paul polgar. Paul polgar, thank you for that introduction. I would like to thank the u. S. Fortol Historical Society inviting me here today. Today is going to attempt to illustrate the central ways this First National congressional debate set the tone for these larger issues of slavery and race as they would play out over seven decades stretching all the way to the outbreak of the civil war. The subject of the talk will focus on the debate as it unfolded in 1790. In the early months of 1790, the house of representatives was consumed by the issue of slavery. Triggered by a set of petitions asking the First Federal congress to take antislavery gripped, this debate the lower house for days. Historians have interpreted this early episode in a long history of congressional grappling with the institution of slavery in various ways. Some have pointed to the role of these debates as establishing rule whichental would silence future additions to slavery to congress. Others have highlighted the congressional resolutions resulting from the debates, arguing they would close substantive action on the sector federal level and represent a lost opportunity for legislating against slavery in early america. Still others have downplayed the suppose it victories insisting , the debates concluded with an antislavery victory, namely the assertion congress could regulate the slave trade. What all these interpretations share is an implicit assumption that the debate was wholly over slavery and the slave trade. What im going to argue is at the heart of this debate is a overgle not merely constitutional provision but rather one over fundamental principles. On one side stood those who highlighted human over Property Rights and imagine American Revolutionary ideas of natural and equal liberty as applicable to those with black skin. In a series of petitions that generated this heated debate, antislavery activists, and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, put forth a vision of a new nation that imagined a racially inclusive republican where the basic rights of enslaved africans were respected. Opposite the petitioners, a congressman from the lower south, here, im referring to georgia and South Carolina, these men answered the antislavery rhetoric of the petitioners by undermining the underlining the sanctity of Property Rights and depicting slaves as inferior to their white counterparts, unfit for the liberty the petitioners argued was a natural right of all. Thus, Congress First debate over slavery exposed a rift over the meaning of race and the place of human bondage in the american nation. A rift over principles that would shape the contours of the nations growing division regarding the peculiar institution for generations to come. After a hardfought battle to ratify the constitution, the First Federal congress convened in new york of april of 1789. If the constitution gave a blueprint for federal governance, the First Congress was left to interpret it design and set presentence precedents in national lawmaking. I have an illustration of federal hall, where the First Congress met during its first two sessions before moving in december to philadelphia where it would stay for a decade. Before coming to what would become washington, d. C. Federal hall is located in northern manhattan. In what is now the financial district. Such issues as creating a National Financial system, funding the revolutionary war debt, and locating a permanent seat of government were some of the most important subject tackled by the nations First Congress. One topic the congress did not expect to address was slavery. The federal convention of 1787 resulted in a constitution that gave no indisputable victory to pro or antislavery interests. As with many devices standing in the way of creating a stronger union, the federal constitution maintained enough ambiguity to allow states opposed to and in favor of slavery to ratify the document. So, it would fall to congress to flesh out these ambiguities, either embracing or rejecting principles hostile to slavery. On february 11, 1790, one month into the second session of the First Congress, representative Thomas Spitzer the month fitzsimmons and John Lawrence presented antislave trade petitions from their quaker yearly meetings. Quakers were the leading religious Group Opposed to slavery. These petitions argued the slave trade violated the sanctity of the social contract and debased and dehumanized all those who took part. The trafficking of our fellow men was in human tyranny and destructive to the virtue and happiness of the people. In asking the First Congress to turn their attention to a case so interesting to the rights of men, the petitioners wanted the house to exert full extent of their power in discouraging the abominable commerce that was the slave trade. If the petitions of february 11 sent tremors through the house, when a third petition from the Pennsylvania Abolition Society reached the floor the following day, it would register as a massive earthquake. Whereas the previous petitions called for congress to examine its powers regarding the slave trade, the Pennsylvania Abolition Societys edition addressed the house in much broader and much more threatening abolitionist terms. I have here an image of the petition as it was submitted to congress. It is worth quoting from this petition to capture the scope of its attack on human bondage, so i will quote at length from the petition. From the regard of the happiness of mankind, and association was formed several years ago in the state. They are referring to the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. A just and accurate consumption conception of the true principles of liberty as it spreads through the land produces many friends in the legislative cooperation of their views. Which have been successfully directed to the relieving of vonage a large number of their fellow creatures of the african race. Here, the petitioner is referring to the pennsylvania abolition act of 1780. The petitioners have the satisfaction to observe that in consequence of that spirit of philanthropy and general liberty which is generally diffusing, similar institutions are gradually forming at home and abroad. That mankind are all formed by the same almighty being, the object of his care and equally designed for the enjoyment of happiness, the christian religion teaches us to believe and the political creed of america coincides with this position. Petitioners ha have observed many important powers are vested in you. They quote the constitution. Securing the blessings of liberty to the people of the united states. And as they conceive these blessings ought 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 object of their care would be omitted or delayed. From a persuasion that equal liberty is the birthright of all men and influenced by the strong tides of humanity and the principles of their institution, we conceive ourselves bound to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen the bounds of slavery and promote a general enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. You will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty for those in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage. That you will devise means for removing this inconsistency from the character of the american people, that you will promote mercy and justice toward this distressed race and step to the verge of the powers vested in you for discouraging every species of traffic in our fellow man. The petition would have been read out loud just like that. Was read by the speaker of the house, so you have to imagine other congressmen receiving this. While the petition technically asked the house to apply jurisdictional powers over the slave trade specifically, its aims, as you have all heard, were much more encompassing. The Pennsylvania Abolition Society led the Antislavery Movement in pennsylvania. Pennsylvania passed the gradual emancipation law in 1780 and the society was working on incorporating former slaves into the republic as citizens. Calling for the application of its principles to the nation at large, the Abolition Society projected confidence that the course of history was on its side. It is referencing there are societies forming at home and internationally. Theres a real sense of confidence in this petition. The petition argued people of african descent were entitled to equal liberty with their free white counterparts. Emphasizing the equal humanity of slaves rather than their status as property, the society urged congress to approach the topic of slavery in this light. Linkedr, the petition the founding principles of the new nation, what it called the local creed of america, with the cause of slaverys abolition. To clinch this point, the Pennsylvania Abolition Society had it president and leading figure of American National identity sign the document. You can see in the bottom right corner, the signature. For those of you who dont spend your days reading 18thcentury handwriting, take my word for it. That is indeed Benjamin Franklins signature. The president of the society. The petition asked the house not only to assert immediate powers over regulating the slave trade, but to ratify a larger vision of the republic as a land of genuine liberty. A nation where the rights and humanity of enslaved blacks were acknowledged. Here, i want to show you the seal of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which i think neatly encapsulates the ideals of the society. You can see a slave, having so, as i said, the petition is asking the house not only to assert its immediate powers over regulating the slave trade, but ultimately to endorse its larger vision. There are seven congressmen we will hear more from coming up, they quickly denounced the petition. Representatives from New England States, thomas scott of pennsylvania projected a strong voice of support for the antislavery petitioners. Answering a lower southerners contention that africans were a species of property, it was answered that it was not possible for one man to have property in another. If there was neither god nor opposehe said he would it on the principles of humanity. Scott offered that were he a federal judge and slaves asked him for freedom, i am sure i would go as far as i could in emancipating them. Others recommend that the petitions be referred to a committee. After two days of debate, the house voted to commit the petitions to a special committee for consideration. The select committee charged with drafting a report on the antislavery petitions completed their work on march 1 and submitted to the house the product of their deliberation four days later. The first cause of the report reiterated the pledge to not interfere with the slave trade before 1708. The second said that congress emancipation within the period mentioned it this section of the report was interpreted by William Lawton smith of South Carolina as leaving open the possibility that after 1808, congress could only ban the slave trade but regulate and perhaps in the slavery altogether. The third permission granted that only the individual states could make balls relating to the make laws regarding the happiness of the slave trade to tax slaves and to endorse the antislavery intentions of the petitioners. And finally the santa claus endorsed the intentions of the petitioners. Informing the petitioners that in all cases where congress could advance humane objects based on justice, humanity and good policy, they would do so. To the lower southerners who had opposed considering the petition altogether and wanted to table them and silence them, any report was bound to disappoint. Especially disappointing was a second clause that could be read to opening the door to federally sectioned emancipation, even though every cumbersome and who spoke in the debates would deny the right of the federal government to abolish slavery on the state level. The final cloth implied solidarity clause implied solidarity. The lower southerners succeeded in tabling the report, but the house agreed to take up the report on march 16th. To fully grasp why the lower southerners would offer an elaborate justification for slavery, it is important meet knowledge the defensive position of these congressmen found themselves in. In 1790, it was far from certain whether slavery would survive in the new republic. Many of the founding generation felt slavery was doomed to die out. By the time the first all five of the New England States and pennsylvania had either ended slavery judiciously judicially or put them on the path. They would have the passage of gradual abolition asked acts. Meanwhile in virginia and , maryland, the declining viability of the tobacco economy that led to the freeing of thousands of slaves voluntarily, and lifted restrictions on the slaveholders. As they took of the antislavery petitions, only South Carolina and georgia appeared unequivocally committed to the longterm presence of slavery in independent america. Furthermore, there is no what we would call solid south political alignment, completely or unabashedly committed to favoring the institution of slavery at this time. Revealingly, virginia was often lumped together by National Politicians with new york and pennsylvania. A mix of the rhetorical championing of the ideas of liberty and equality by some of virginias leading political figures and the state economic self interest, they stood to gain economically from any congressional action taken against the slave trade. All of this meant that lower southerners could not count on their northern neighbors for ideological support taking into account these factors, lower southern members of the house mustve been alarmed by the Pennsylvania Abolition Society petition that was read before the house. It urged congress to apply the societys principles as a guide to dealing with the issue of slavery on the National Level. Finding themselves boxed in politically, cumbersome and from South Carolina and georgia would feel compelled to combat the principles of the antislavery petitioners with what they viewed as a principal defense of slavery. Slaverys proponents relied on a bevy of arguments in defending bondage. Repeatedly, lower southerners attacked the quakers as subversive. The decision of many quakers to remain neutral revealed to them as being cowardly traitors, posing as Conscientious Objectors while they brought it to call their loyalty. The cause of evolution as part of a religious text rather than a universal one american independence. Yet, sullying the character of the quakers left the content of the petitions on answer appeared slavery defenders also turned to engine but revered sources in making their case. Both the greek and roman empires, two influential models for america, use slaves. Historical precedents of this kind called look carry little weight. In a country already celebrating itself by its exceptional nature, endorsement from the past ring hollow. Slaverys defenders scoured the bible for passengers that condoned slavery and recited to their colleagues those excerpts the interpreted as doing just that. Turning to the bible was a mixed blessing for slavery defenders. Antislavery activists could harness the christian precepts of altruism, benevolence in answering slaverys advocates. The inconclusive effect of these strategies in defending slavery left lower slippers southerners to compromise. Political compromise, economic utility only people of economic the senate could work in the tropical environment of the south, lacked a rationale and did not counter the claims of underlying black equality. This left Property Rights and race purity as we shall see, in defending american slavery, the lower southerners would merge Property Rights with racial and racial inferiority. On march 16, a man from South Carolina initiated the second round of debates on slavery when he offered a motion to substitute the entirety of the report with that congress could not take said memorial into their consideration, as being unconstitutional and tending to injure some of the states of the union. James jackson of georgia, regarded as a cantankerous orator, seconded the motion and spoke for over one hour. Attesting to the sanctity of Property Rights, jackson asked his colleagues at the rights of property are not adequate to the rights of person. And if the meaning of the constitution was not to secure the citizens in position of one as well as the other. In other words, Property Rights were indistinguishable from natural rights. Jackson was pushing back against the petitioners emphasis on the natural rights of slaves to freedom. But in defending slavery, jackson went young underscoring the centrality of Property Rights to the founding of the new nation. To counter the petitioners order it of the equal humanity of slaves, jackson weight out his version of the nature of enslaved africans and African Americans. The west african countries from which american slaves originated followed a despotic social model, in which a king had absolute authority over those in his dominion, according to jackson. Thus, africas were habituated from their earliest experiences in what jackson considered barbaric africa month in a universally even in their mothers milk, their disposition to serve as slaves. Jackson also turned to the prospect of emancipation. If the slaves were freed, what next . Jackson pointed out that Thomas Jefferson in his notes had already examined the question of slaverys abolition and concluded that should slaves be liberated, deeprooted prejudice entertained by whites, longheld animosities harbored by blacks, the physical and moral differences between the two groups and the real distinctions nature has made would result in a race for appeared jackson concurred with jefferson that unavoidable racial polarization included any prospect of an america where white and blacks freely lived sidebyside. Moreover, jackson added, there was a great distinction between the subjects of liberty. Holding up the example of maryland, where the ongoing liberation of slaves resulted in a large population. Jackson claimed they became pickpockets and only harmed society. I quote again, the sound of liberty when applied to slavery, jackson ominously warned, has this consequence. For jackson, any effort to free a people whose natural disposition predispose them to slavery was not only a waste of time and resources, but also flew in the face of natures intended design for africans, unconditional bondage. Following jacksons speech, the members of the house voted down to the proposed amendment to the report. It continued to be debated and considered. During the next days debate, was bin laden smith and dennis burke, joined jackson in defending slavery. Both echoed his depiction of slaves as culturally and inherently inferior and naturally fit for bondage. By advocating emancipation, they were doing an act of at that of inhumanity to the slaves as he sought. Time, the leader of the british army conferred liberty 2000 of blacks, but burke erroneously claimed that most of these masse, died en demonstrating how incapable a slaves of making a proper use of his liberty. Smith followed burke with the speech in excess of two hours, seeking to filibuster the report. In the process, he intended to show that slavery is not that dark thing detested by many americans. Here is smith. Like jackson before him, smith used a hypothetical to strengthen his justification for black slavery. He too turned Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, a man of enlightened understanding had already improved in inferior race as beings even to the indians. The policy evident in jeffersons notes made the goal of emancipation a pernicious and fatal f fatal exercise and a direct threat to the nations white population. Should the nation in eradicate slavery and admit what people into white society, it would permanently alter the countrys character for the worst and stain the blood of the whites. The potential for a race war was an equally horrendous prospect according to smith. The inherent incompatibility of black with white would lead to a bloody battle with the Strongest Party left to murder the weaker. In smiths estimation, externally imposed black freedom could never hold up in the face of natures plan for those of african descent. Africans and African Americans were an indolent people. They would either start or plunder. Even if emancipation was enacted throughout the country, smith said the two races would remain distinct. While the petitioners argued that nature had made all men equal, and here i am quoting jackson quoting his interpretation of the petitioners, nature had made all men equal and the difference of color should not place negroes on a worse footing in society. He labeled them hypocrites and said even the warmest friends of blacks kept them at a distance. He felt this was an inescapable social reality. Two of the antislavery petitioners most vocal proponents put forth intense ideological opposition to human bondage, but did so in ways that at first glance seemed unthreatening to the institution of slavery. Two men from louisiana and delaware adopted a way of speaking about slavery that made it holy out of place in the united states, even if vacancy to the federal government was powerless to end slavery. Here is an illustration of one of them. He was an important defender of the petitioners. He declared slavery incompatible with americas founding principles. The lower southerners, he lectured, could no more legitimate bondage in the british could convince the former colonists that their tyrannical english law was just. Furthermore, the declaration of independence laid out to the war that justice and freedom with the Building Blocks of the republic. Here he read the declaration, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain alienable rights. Those words, he concluded, served as the language of america. He roundly rejected the efforts of jackson and smith to harmonize flavoring with the new nation. At the same time, he reassured the lower southerners that he recognized their right to hold people in chains. For him, there was a wide difference between justifying slavery and the slave trade and acknowledging a claim to property in the form of bonds person. What he failed to understand was that to the lower southerners, without justifying slavery, the property claim was not sufficiently secure. John vining was another house number who spoke in favor of the petitioners. Vining offered a ringing condemnation of slavery in at the same time confessed that this condemnation was inapplicable to the subject at hand. An excerpt from one of his speeches, which i will read, captures this rhetoric at work. Ewing the question as it regards general principles, i hold it to be an immutable truth that all men are created equal, and freedom is an inalienable right, and a state in which a man exists merely for the use of another is unnatural. An undefined power to be exercised by one human being over another is a dangerous and unnatural power. But, as the our general. But as these are general principles, i shall forbear at the lease commentary upon them. So they seemed to be telling the lower southerners, we tolerate your right to property person that we do not slavery. To these representatives, the antislavery thrust of American Revolutionary thought was unconnected to the house today. To the lower southerners, this rhetoric was not an abstract or theoretical threat. The antislavery petitions turned the general principle they referenced into a tangible specter threatening to tear apart the fabric of slaveholding southern life. In turn, lower southern covers the so compelled to defend slavery as a normal state for people they rendered an inferior race, incapable of living as free citizens. There emerged one house member that joined philosophical support for the petitioners with the willingness to entertain the possibility of fraud federal powers over the issue of slavery. Unfortunately, the one congressman in this debate, there is no portrait. We will have to imagine him. Thomas scott of pennsylvania, the most strident defender of the index slavery petition, broke out for the first time in over a month. He listed hypothetical scenarios to illustrate his expansive view of the implied Powers Congress held over the slave trade, premised on the general welfare clause of the constitution, which we heard referenced in the petition. Scott technologist that congress was explicitly prohibited and stopping the importation of slaves for at least 20 years. But, what if congress determined that the person imported by the states possessed inadmissible qualities such as the plague, could not congress in stop the admission of such people . What if the state tried to import alien enemies . Would congress not be empowered to intervene and stop calamity from taking place . Scott had watched as the representatives from South Carolina and georgia insisted that the wretched africans were property and not people. Could not the federal government over the under regulating trade and commerce, put a stop to the slave trade . Congress had recently passed the naturalization act, giving the race of citizenship to immigrants who were free white people only. As the role of centralization was an arbitrary rule, scott reminded the house that future congresses could whenever they please, rewrite the law and the clear that every person, blacks, white, blue or red, be not only free persons but free citizens. Milling his reading of the constitution empowered federal government to end the slave trade and import africans as citizens, thereby in the the differentiation. This example fight the stuff of nightmares for lower Southern Congress and feared Southern Congressman. As a president of an Abolitionist Society of pennsylvania, scotts work in cap sold encapsulated a vision that had caused slaverys defenders to counter that slavery was the only appropriate site for appropriate state for African Americans and it was fully compatible with the new nation. For James Jackson, scotts comments only confirm what he had known all along. The antislavery petitions represented a complete assault on the institution of slavery. Therefore, while many members accused the lower southerners of undue trepidation in their fiery reactions to the petitions and support, for jackson it was the reality, not the bugbear we have raised. Jackson spoke for the lower southern contingent when he raised concern that the digitals embodied in the petition could one day be applied with devastating effect to the slave south. I quote jackson here, the declarations we hear on this floor will make them fear that once the doors open, their property is not secure, and if Congress Wants opened the store, i contend there was no bound at which they could stop it. In the end, neither the petitioners nor the lower southerners could claim total victory. Following three days of debate on individual clauses, on march 23, 1790, the house came to an agreement. Under James Madisons motion, the house voted to substitute the word until with prior to in the first clause. This came intact left intact the rest. It read that the migration or importation of such persons cannot be prohibited by Congress Prior to the year 1808. This was in response to lower southern concerns that the reports original language of until assumed the slave trade would be abolished in 1808, when in fact, congress was not obligated at all. The revised resolutions relating to slavery also favored the lower 70s. The second and third causes were struck out. A new resolution accorded exclusive jurisdiction for slavery to the individual states of the union. It read, let congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves or treatment of them within any of the states, it remaining with the several states alone to provide regulations therein which humanity and true holocene true policy may require. As is indicated in madisons role, the protestations of the georgians and south carolinians had forced virginia and representatives to make clear their shared identification with the lower southerners as fellow planters seeking to protect the rights of slaveholders in the new republic. Yet, we should also keep in mind that no congressman outside those in the lower south have asserted that the power to emancipate slaves lay with the federal government. This revised clause only restated what nearly every National Politician believed. Additionally, while william juan smith proposed removing the word humanity, his motion did not pass. Smith fought unsuccessfully to read the report of any words that echoed the petitioners language. In other ways, the lower southerners did not get what they hoped for. First, they didnt want covers to consider the petition. Then they tried and failed to substitute the original report with the statement that congress should once again refused to consider the petition. Then, a majority of georges into South Carolinas representatives unsuccessfully opposed to the unprecedented step of having a final report recorded in the house journal, believing that doing so would give voice to a topic they wished to silence altogether and act as a precedent for future antislave agitators. Most unsatisfying way from the perspective of those such as James Jackson and smith, despite the southerners long monologues, not one congressman outside of georgia or South Carolina acquiesced in pronouncing human bondage of just institution. In fact, several representatives expressed shock that any dignified statesman could dare to argue for the moral legitimacy of human bondage, and it is in this way the petitioners triumphed in the battle of slavery principles, broadcasting on a National Level. The underlying ideas antithetical to slavery survived the debate intact, and explains why the Vice President of the sylvania Abolitionist Society could conclude that the whole episode had served to disseminate or principles and led to a more general assent. This in turn showed that the time was not very distant when these principles would be universally received and firmly established. To conclude, putting aside trying to identify the winners and losers in his First Congressional tussle over slavery, the ultimate legacy of the debate was a pivotal way in which it set the terms for future National Battles over the peculiar institution it is play in the american institution. From lincolns commitment for the essential rights of slaves to alexander stephensons assertion that the confederate nation was confounded excuse me, was founded on a belief of inherent black and 4080 like inferiority, the debate first emerged at the inaugural meeting of congress. Thank you. [applause] any questions . What was at stake here . The petition was not a bill that could have accomplished anything. Prof. Polgar these were resolutions. These resolutions expressed the feelings of one congress on interpreting the constitution. At one given moment in time. Having said that, the constitution says that the slave trade cannot be ended 41808, but before 1808, but it gives powers of congress to regulate the slave trade, the foreign slave trade could be regulated, and in fact there was a bill passed a few years later regulating the foreign slave trade. A tax could be applied to the foreign slave trade. There was that reality. My argument is this was really about laying out the principles and the debate. Yet remember, the Constitutional Convention steered clear of a lot of these principal arguments. It gave no clear victory to probe or if i slavery interests. Taking a lot of interest to proslavery interest, but no absolute guarantee and the absolut saturday of Property Rights and slaves. So when the First Congress meets, there is this debate going on based on which principles would win out, and i or anti or proslavery. But they were a measure of how when congress was interpreting how the constitution could be applied to the institution of slavery. Why did Congress Even have to consider these petitions . Someone submits a petition to congress, what could they not just ignore . Prof. Polgar they could. Chuck who introduced me has written on this very fact, showing how the antislavery petitioners played an essential role in sort of establishing that petitions to congress could be about moral issues. Up to this point, the second session of the First Congress have been based on individual claims. Revolutionary war soldiers trying to collect pensions and other things like that. This was a larger, huge issue. The quakers, in getting their petitions heard in getting any resolutions and a debate innocence, established that the federal government could take up moral issues. In the federal government would do that through the early years of the republic, through because kinds of issues, temperance, the womens movement, further antislavery, all the way up to today with issues like questions of abortion rights. This was a Pivotal Moment in that way, as well. Thank you very much. It was very illuminating. I am here from my book club. At the moment, we are reading the new book, and i slavery racist ideas. Prof. Polgar i have it, as well. It is quite a read. You talk about the northern slaves having abolished slavery in their jurisdiction. That assumes there was slavery in the north. Prof. Polgar there absolutely was. Why did they become truer to the american idea first . Was it Just Economics that made them say slavery was not worth it . Prof. Polgar certainly, the quick and easy answer is to say it is all dependent on what the proportion of slaveholders are in any given society. There are many more slaveholders who hold more power to lyrically, economically and socially in states like georgia and South Carolina been in pennsylvania than in pennsylvania and new york. That is the easiest answer. However, we have to remember that just getting emancipation passed in states like pennsylvania and especially new york and new jersey were long, he did battles, where in a lot of this rhetoric and back and forth between those opposed to slavery and those for it laid out. It was not easy to abolish anywhere in the american republic. It was a very difficult battle where everyone turned. But the pennsylvania Abolitionist Society is totally locked in to this battle. They are sort of taking their experience in ideals and principles as they formed them over the course of already a number of years in fighting against slavery and infighting to bring those principles and ideas to the National Level. But yes, slavery is difficult to abolish everywhere in the united states. Yes . Benjamin franklins role. Would it have been given as much attention if Benjamin Franklin had not been the president of the society . Prof. Polgar interesting question. There are two petitions from quaker yearly meetings that were also presented. These meetings have nothing to do with franklin. He did not sign the petition. On the one hand, you could say his role was not necessary for them to be heard. However, his signature on that document acts to sort of signal the congress that these principles of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society have Greater National currency and relevance. That is the role he played. That was a very important one in this attempt to sort of project Larger National congruence with the pennsylvania Abolitionist Society. James jackson accused franklin of being senile in the debates. He said this is the only way franklin couldve possibly signed this petition. Franklin got his revenge. He wrote a satire in a local newspaper imagining in algerian politician defending the slavery of christians 100 years before. Of course, franklin was a master of satire, and showing he responded directly to jackson, showing he still had his full faculties. This was really the last act of Benjamin Franklin, because he died only weeks after writing this editorial. Yes . What kind of discussion or debate was happening in europe at this time . Today informed the american debate . Prof. Polgar when i read the petition at length, the Abolitionist Society are pointing out that there are abolitionist societies that have emerged throughout the larger atlantic world, what we call europe. The London Society has emerged in this period, and it is closely corresponding with the Pennsylvania Society. There is a society in paris, which has also emerged in his corresponding. One of its leading advocates make the trip to philadelphia and new york to correspond in meat and create a joint effort between these societies. It is an important point your member that in fact this debate in if i slavery activities involving the institution of slavery were unfolding in a much broader landscape beyond the united states. The Pennsylvania Society pointed to this and said, look. The trajectory not only of the nation is on our side, but also the broader atlantic world, because in fact slavery is on the defensive in england at this time, and it is on the defensive and will be on the defensive as the haitian revolution emerges, which has really is about to begin a year after this debate. This was absolutely part of the broader global discussion. Thank you so much for the information. I appreciate your research. Every time a hear about slavery, you learn something new. One of the things i really hear about is in addition to the moral, physical and mental degradation of the human being of color was the sexual abuses, as well. That seems to get pushed to the back of the story. By the way, there were x number of rapes, adultery, incestuous. Here we have children born that were never recognized, shall i say . In counted as members of society and counted as members of society. That is huge, and left at the bottom. I wish it would come up further. Prof. Polgar yes, and i certainly dont mean to imply not you. [laughter] prof. Polgar but i totally agree with you. This in fact was a factor that abolitionist were beginning to point to and would especially pointed by the 1830s, when slavery is interpreted by white northerners as being officially sense of especially offensive at the way it works up families, promotes sexual abuse. Those arguments are just really beginning, they are in their infant stages during this period. But by the 1830s, this is a key argument abolitionists are making, the way it degrades and dehumanizes sexually, right, slate women slave women, and at to the slave population. There is an economic interest in masters sexually violating slaves. It became a very important factor. Wasnt one of the end results of this debate is that Congress Said they would not consider petitions on slavery anymore . Prof. Polgar yes. I alluded to this in the opening. Some historians have argued this was a prelude to the gag rule, it fully emerges later in the 1830s and you have a flood of petitions coming to congress. There is no absolute answer to that. In a lot of ways, yes, it is setting a precedent that is saying, antislavery petitions are not going to be handled in exactly this way to compute it is true that exactly in this way to come. It is true that if you after this, they table the discussions. They adopted this strategy. A lot of ways, slavery on the National Level is not going to burst out in this way continuously. But i want to make clear that the slavery issue is not silence on the National Level at all. You can go through congressional records and see debates over slavery either regarding petitions or sometimes emerging indirectly with other issues. It is not as though the slavery issue is complete we silenced at the National Level. Even if, right, the petitions are gapped in a certain way in the years following gagged in a certain way in the years following. [indiscernible] inspired people to look at this debate more in honest dimensions. There are plenty of dimensions to look at. One thing i would remind you, if you study this episode, the wider atlantic world, there is a lot going on in congress at this time. Nothing is debated in congress in a vacuum. In this particular case, for those of you who have seen hamilton, and you know his report on public credit is being debated at the same time. Tensions in congress are already amped up. You get these quakers and senile ben franklin throwing these potentially unconstitutional proposals, and things really start to ignite. Bear that in mind. I am reminded, unless i am wrong in this, there are good in bad good and bad sides to the it i slavery debate antislavery debate being dragged out. Some people say this is a titanic waste of time. Then we have simmons of pennsylvania saying lets drag it out more because we have some colleagues who are not here yet to weigh in on a proposal on hamiltons system. You are a lot of things going on that make history exciting. Thank you for sharing some of that. [applause] youre watching American History tv, all weekend, every weekend, cspan3. Like us on facebook at cspan history. Never let anyone define you. That is the first lesson i want to leave you with. Only you define who you are, only you. Open. Hearts should be not just of falling in love, but to the world. We need to look, we need to care , and we need to contribute. Dont ever let anyone tell you that your dreams are silly. If you have to look back on your life, regret the things that you did, and not what you didnt do. Nothing stay still. Things will change. The question for you is whether and how you will participate in the process of creative change. Just a few past commencement speeches from the cspan video library. Whats more of this years commencement speeches on saturday, may 27, monday, may 29, and june 3, on cspan and www. Cspan. Org. Thaterican history tv is the Old Barracks Museum in new jersey, coming we will take you on a tour. From the french and indian war to the revolutionary war. Fire. We talk about the 18th