Transcripts For CSPAN3 1790 Congressional Debate On Slavery And Race 20170822

To d. C. Before i bring him to the podium, i want to make this a National Event with a scope that goes beyond this area code. We have a visitor from california here, a good friend of ours, and another wonderful friend from new york city. For some reason, im forgetting your name. John. John mackateer, im sorry, john. He represents the harvard conservancy developing the federal hall site of where the First Federal congress met into a going thing, a real destination in Lower Manhattan for studies of the early congresses. So welcome to everybody, whether you came from near or far, and well welcome paul poglar. [ applause ] thank you, chuck, for that introduction. I would like to thank the Historical Society for inviting me here today. So my talk today entitled congresss first debate on slavery and race is going to attempt to demonstrate, really, the central ways that this First National congressional debate really set the tone for these larger issues of slavery and race as they would play out over a some seven decades period stretching all the way to the outbreak of the civil war. But again, the subject of the talk really focused on this 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 taken aty slavery measures, this debate gripped the lower house of the National Legislature for days. Historians have interpreted this early episode in the long history of congressional grappling with the institution of slavery in various ways. Some have pointed to the role of these debates in establishing the gag rule to go on to silence future antislavery petitions to congress. Others have highlighted the results of the debates, arguing they would close antislavery action on the federal level and represent a lost opportunity for legislating against slavery in early america. Still, others have down played the supposed victory of slaverys defenders, namely the assertion that congress could regulate the slave trade. Yet what all of these interpretations share is an implicit in the slave trade. The heart of the debate was a struggle, not simply or even primarily unconstitutional or congressional provisions, but rather one over fundamental principles. On one side stood those who highlighted over human Property Rights and imagined American Revolutionary ideals 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 especially the Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society put forward a new imagination that had a reclusive republic where the basic rights of enslaved africans were respected. Opposite the petitioners stood congressmen from the lower south, and here im referring to gorge in north and South Carolina. This underline the Property Rights of people and depicting slaves as inferior to their white counterparts utterly unfit for the liberty that the petitioners argued was a natural right. Thus, congresss first debate over slavery exposed a rift over human bondage in the american nation. The rift over principles to shake the contours of the nations growing division regarding the peculiar institution for generations to come. After a hardfought battle by federalists to ratify the constitution, the First Federal congress convened in new york in april of 1789. If the constitution gave the nation a blueprint for federal governance, the First Congress was left to interpret its design and set precedence in national law making. And i have here an illustration of federal hall where the First Congress met during the first two sessions before moving in december of 1790 to philadelphia where it would stay for a decade before eventually coming to what became washington, d. C. In federal hall, it is located in Lower Manhattan in what is now the financial district. Such issues as creating a financial system, funding the revolutionary war debts and locating a permanent seat of government were some of the most important subjects tackled by the nations First Congress. One topic, however, that the congress did not expect to address was slavery. The federal convention of 1787 had resulted in a constitution that gave no indisputable victory to either pro or antislavery interests. As with many divisive subjects standing in the way of creating a stronger union, the federal constitution retained enough ambiguity to allow states, excuse me, to allow states to oppose and in favor of slavery to ratify the document. So what would fall to congress to flush out the ambiguities, either embracing or rejecting principles hostile to slavery. On february 11th, 1790, one month into the second session of the First Congress, representatives Thomas Fitzsimmons of pennsylvania and John Lawrence of new york presented antislave petitions from their respective states as quaker yearly meetings. Quakers were the leading religious group and the leading Group Opposed to slavery in this period. These two petitions forcefully argued that the slave trade violated the sanctity of the social compact and based and dehumanized all those who took part in it. Quote, trafficking, the trafficking of our fellow men, one of the petitioners read, was, quote, abhorrent to common humanity and destructive to, quote, the virtue in happiness of the people. In asking the First Congress to turn their attention to a, quote, case so interesting to the rights of men, the petitioners wanted the house to, quote, exert the full extent of your power in discouraging, quote, the abominable slave trade. If the petitions of february 11th sent trimmers through the house, when a third antislavery petition, this time from the pennsylvania abolitionist reached the floor the following day as a massive earthquake, whereas the previous petitions called for the congress to examine the powers regarding the slave trade. The Pennsylvania Abolitionist Societys petition addressed the house in much broader and as well see to lower southern legislators much more threatening abolitionist terms. And i have here an image of the petition as it was submitted to congress. Now, its worth quoting from this petition at length to capture the scope of the attack on human bondage. Im going to quote at length from this petition. From a regard for the happiness of mankind in association was formed several years ago in this state and here the petitioners refer to the Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society. A just and accurate conception of the true principles of liberty as it spread through the land produced many friends to their cause in a legislative cooperation with their views. Which have been successfully directed to the relieving from bondage a large number of their fellow creatures of the african race. And here the petitioners were referred to the pennsylvania abolition act of 1780. They, the petitioners, also have the satisfaction to observe that in consequence of that spirit of philanthropy and genuine liberty, which is generally diffusing, similar institutions are gradually forming both at home and abroad. That mankind are all formed by the same almighty being, like objects of his care and equally designed for the enjoyment of happiness, the christian religion teaches us to believe and the political creative america fully coincides with this position. Your memorialists and memorialists are another are another term for petitioners. Your memorialists have found many important powers invested in you, promoting the welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to the people of the United States. And as they conceive that these blessings aught 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 is still the birthright of all men, an influence by the strong ties of humanity and the principles that their institution, your memorialists can see themselves bound to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen the bounds of slavery and promote a general enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. That youll be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men who alone 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 towards this distress race and that you will step to the very verge of the powers vested in you for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow men. And the petition would have been read out loud just like that. In fact, it was read by the speaker of the house, frederick mu muhlenberg, so we have to imagine as we see the Lower Congressmen receiving this. And then well sort of understand the response. While the petitioners technically asked for powers over the slave trade specifically, its aims as you have all heard now were much more encompassing. The Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society led the Antislavery Movement in its state. Pennsylvania, as i mentioned before, had passed a gradual emancipation law in 1780. And the society was now working to incorporate former slaves into the republic as citizens. The call for the application of its principles to the nation at large, the Abolitionist Society projected a confidence that the course of history was on its side. It references the abolition act and referenced that there are societies forming both at home and internationally. Theres a real sense of confidence in this petition. And people of african decent for the free counterparts emphasize the humanity of slaves rather than their status as property, the Abolitionist Society urged congress to approach the topic of slavery in this light. It called the political credence with the cause of slaverys abolition. A Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society had its president and leading figure of the American National identity sign the document. And those of you who dont spend your days reading 18th century writing, take my word for it, that is indeed Benjamin Franklins signature, Benjamin Franklin was the president of the society. In sum, they asked to assert 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. And here i wanted to show you the seal of a Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society, which i think neatly encapsulated the ideals of the society. You can see here a slave having broken his chains just standing up. And this white antislavery activist taking the slave by the hand. They are standing sidebyside. So then as i said, this petition is asking the house, not only to assert its immediate powers over regulating the slave trade, but ultimately to endorse the larger vision. Now, the Lower Congress will hear a lot from coming up quickly denounced the New England States and Midatlantic States and saw the foresight of the petitioners. Thomas scott of pennsylvania projected a strong voice of support for the antislavery petitioners. In answering a lower southern contention that african slaves were a, quote, species of property, scott pronounced that it was, quote, not possible that one man would have property in the person of another. If there was neither god nor devil, scott declared, he would oppose the slave treat on, quote, principles of humanity and the law of nature. Scott offered that were he a federal judge and slaves asked him for freedom, and i quote again, i am not sure i would go, excuse me, i am sure i would go as far as i could in emancipating them. Elias of new jersey and John Lawrence, second to sentiments of scott, remmed the petitions be referred to a committee. The house voted to a special committee for recommendation. The committee charged with drafting a report on the antislavery petitions completed their work on march 1st and submitted to the house the product of their deliberation four days later. The first clause of the report looked at the pledge to refrain from interfering with the trade of 1808. The second stated that congress is restrained from interfering in the emancipation of the slaves within the period mentioned. Now this section of the report was interpreted by William Smith of South Carolina as leaving open a possibility that after 1808 congress could not only ban the slave trade but regulate and perhaps end slavery altogether. The reports third provision granted that only the individual states could make laws relating to the education, the morality, religion and overall welfare of their slaves even as the report encouraged the states to, quote, promote the happiness of the slaves. The fourth, fifth and sixth provisions recognized the federal governments right to tax slaves imported into the United States and to regulate the foreign slave trade. And then finally, the seventh clause endorsed the antislavery intentions of the petitioners. Informing the petitioners that in all cases where congress could advance their humane objects based on the justice, humanity and good policy, they would do so. We want to just table the petitions and silence them, but any report was bound to disappoint. Especially does tushing was a second clause red to open the door to emancipation. Even though every congressman who spoke in the dates would deny the power of the federal government to abolish slavery on the state level. Additionally, the final clause complied solidarity with the petitioners perspective and it appeared to deport the petitioners code of ethics. The lower southerners succeeded in tabling the report, but the house agreed to take up the report on march 16th. Now, to fully grasp why the lower southern representatives would choose to offer an elaborate justification in slavery, it is important to acknowledge the position that the congressmen found themselves in during the First Congress. In 1790, first of all, it was far from certain whether slavery would survive in the new republic. Indeed, many of the founding generation believed slavery was doomed to die out. By the time the First Congress met all five of the New England States along with pennsylvania, had either ended slavery judicially or put the institution on the road to extinction through gradual emancipation laws. New york and new jersey were widely seen as soon to follow their midatlantic neighbor and would do so with the passage of gradual abolition acts in 1799 and 1804 respectively. Meanwhile, in virginia and maryland, the declining viability of the tobacco economy had led to the freeing of thousands of slaves through voluntary emissions and lifted restrictions on slave holders ability to liberate their chatle. Thus as the house took up the antislavery petition, only South Carolina and georgia appeared unequivocally committed. Committed to slavery at this time, revealing that virginia was often lumped together by National Politicians within middle states of new york and pennsylvania. A mix of the rhetorical championing of the revolutionary ideals of liberty and equality by virginias leading political figures and the States Economic selfinterest, virginia had an excessive slaves and stood to gain economically from any congressional action taken against the slave trade. All of this meant that lower southerners could not count on the upper southern neighbors ideological support for slavery. Taking into account, lower members of the house must be greatly alarmed by the Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society petition, which was read before the house, in that 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, congressmen from South Carolina and georgia would feel compelled to combat the principles of the antislavery petitioners with what they viewed as a principle defense of slavery. They rely on a bevy of arguments defending bondage. The southerners attacked the quakers as misguided and diversive. They tried to remain neutral during the revolutionary war proved them to be traders, posing as objectors as the british brought into question the quakers loyalty to the american public. Lower southerners attacked the antislavery messengers in the cause of the abolition as the product of a marginalized religious sect, rather than a universal one intimately connected with the meaning of american independence. Yet the quakers left the content of their petitions unanswered. Slaverys defenders also turned to revered sources in making their case. Both the greek and roman empires, two influential models for the american republic, practiced slavery. In fact, every civilization of consequence in Human History permitted bondage, the lower southerners insisted. Historical precedence of this kind, however, carried little weight. In a country that was already celebrating itself identified exceptional nature, endorsements from the past rang hollow. Biblical authority provided a third area for lower southerners to turn. Slaverys defenders scoured the good book for passages that condone slavery and recited to their colleagues the excerpts they interpreted as doing just that. But turning to the bible was a mixed blessing for slaverys defenders. Antislavery activists could harness the christian precepts of all truism, benevolence and the single creation in answering slaverys advocates. The inconclusive effect is that the strategies in defending strategy left the lower southerners to tap economic utility, political compromise, Property Rights and race. Political compromise, the federal constitution was based on balancing various contending state interests and economic utility only people of african descent could work in the tropical south lacked a definite rational for shoring up slavery and did not counter the petitioners claims of underlying black equality. This left Property Rights and race. As we shall see in defending american slavery, the lower southerners would merge calls to Property Rights with there ris of racial infur yourty and allegations for black freedom. On march 16th, Thomas Tudor Tucker initiated the second round of debates on slavery when he offered a motion to substitute the entirety of the report with, quote, that congress could not take the said memorial or petition into their consideration as being unconstitutional and intending to injury some of the states of the union. James jackson of georgia regarded by his colleagues as a cantankeris motive. Heres a picture of James Jackson. Jackson asked his colleagues if, quote, the rights of property are not adequate to the rights of persons. And if on our entering into the constitution, the meaning of it was not to secure the citizens in possession of one as well as the other. In other words, Property Rights were indistinguishable from natural rights. Jackson here was pushing back against the petitioners emphasis on the natural rights of slaves to freedom. But in defending slavery, jackson went beyond underscoring the centrality of Property Rights to the founding of the new nation. To counter the petitioners portrait of the equal humanity of slaves, jackson laid out his version of the nature of enslaved africans and africanamericans. The west african countries from which american slaves originated followed a social model in which king offered authority over all those in his dominion according to jackson. Thus after scans were habituated from their earliest experiences from barbaric africa and they even with their mothers mix, this elixir of servitude, making it their nature, their disposition to fall under as slaves. Jackson turned to the prospect of emancipation. If the slaves were freed, what next . Concluded that deep rooted prejudice entertained by the whites, long harbored animosities with the blacks, the differences in the two groups and the real distinctions that the group made would end in a race war. Jackson concluded that this included any prospect of an america where black and white men lived side by side. Jackson pointed out that Thomas Jefferson had already examined the question of slaverys abolition and concluded that should slaves be liberated within greater american society, quote, deeprooted prejudice entertained by the whites, longheld animosities harbored by the blacks, and the quote, real distinctions nature has made would result in a race war. Jackson concurred with jefferson, that unavoidable racial polarization precluded any prospect of an american america where white and black free men lived side by side. Moreover, jackson added, there was a great quote, distinction between the subjects of liberty. Holding up the example of maryland, were the ongoing manumission of slaves resulted in a growing free population and those liberated were stealing rather than working, becoming common pickpockets and only harm the greater societies in which they were freed. And jackson warned that this has consequence. For jackson, any effort to free a people whose natural disposition predispose them to slavery was 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 present voted down tuckers proposed amendment to the report. So the report continued to be debated and considered. During the next days debate, William Lawton smith and a dennis burke, representing South Carolina, joined jackson aggressively defending slavery. Both echoed jacksons depiction of slaves as culturally inferior and naturally fit for bondage. By advocating emancipation, the petitioners were doing an act of inhumanity to the slaves as burke saw it. During the late revolution, america witnessed how unfit people of african descent were for freedom. At that time, the commander of the british army, lord cornwallace, conferred liberty to thousands of blacks as he swept through the countryside, but burk erroneously claimed most of these former slaves died en masse, thereby demonstrating, quote, how totally incapable the slave is of making a proper use of his newfound liberty. He followed his speech in excess of two hours. Seeking to filibuster the report in the process smith intended to show that, quote, slavery is not that dark thing detested by many americans. And here is william lot smith. Like jackson before him, smith used the hypothetical of slaverys abolition to strengthen his justification for black slavery and he, too, turned to Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, a man of, quote, enlightened understanding, had already proven blacks, quote, by nature an inferior race of beings, even to the indians. Manumission policy evident in jeffersons notes on the state of virginia, made the goal of emancipation a fatal enterprise and a direct threat to the wellbeing of the nations white population. Should the nation eradicate slavery and admit black people into white society, it would permanently alter the countrys character for the worst and quote stain the blood of the whites. Potential for a race war manifested in horrendous prospect as that of racial intermixture according to smith. The inherent incompatibility of black and white would lead to, quote, a bloody battle, with the strongest party, presumably the whites, left to quote, murder the weaker. In smiths estimation, externally imposed black freedom could never hold up in the face of nature plan for those of african decent. Africanamericans were an indolent people, adverse to labor, when emancipated they would either starve or plunder. Even if a plan of gradual emancipation were enacted throughout the country, he announced that the, quote, two races would still remain distinct. The petitioners argued that quote nature had made all men equal and here im quoting jackson, his interpretation of the petitioners. Nature had made all men equal and that the difference of color should not place negroes on a worse footing in society than the whites. These ideals would wither in the harsh reality of white prejudices. Labeling the petitioners as hypocrites and smith declared that even, quote, the warmest friends to the blacks kept them at a distance. The inferiority of black slaves, then, smith seemed to be saying, was not only an absolute feature of nature, but an inescapable social reality that would nullify any attempt to make former bondspersons free and equal. Two of the antislavery petitioners most vocal proponents during the debates put forth ideological opposition to human bondage, but did so in ways that at first, at first glance, seemed unthreatening to the institution of slavery. Alias budinno of new jersey and john vine of delaware, both with states of active slavery constituencies adopted a way of speaking against slavery that defined bondage as wholly out of place within the United States. Even as they conceded that the federal government was powerless to end slavery. And here is an illustration of alias buddino. Who is an important defender of the petitioners. Buddino declared slavery incompatible with americas founding principles. The lower southerners he lectured could no more legitimize bondage than the british could convince the former colonists that their subjection under english rule was just. Furthermore, buddino continued the declaration of independence laid out to the world that liberty and freedom were the Universal Building blocks of the republic and here he quoted the declaration. We hold these truths to be selfevident that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights and among these are the life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those words, buddino concluded, served as the, quote, language of the america. Buddino thus roundly rejected the efforts of jackson and smith to harmonize slavery with a new nation. At the same time as he denounced slavery, buddino reassured the lower southerners that he recognized their right to hold people in chains. For buddino, there was a wide difference between justifying slavery in the slave trade and acknowledging a claim to property in the form of bonds persons. What buddino failed to understand is that to the lower southerners, without justifying slavery, the property claim was not sufficiently secure. John vining was another house member who spoke in favor of the petitioners. Vining offered at once a ringing condemnation of slavery and at the same time confessed that this condemnation was inapplicable to the subject at hand. An excerpt from one of his speeches which im going to read. Viewing the question as it regards general principles, i hold it to be an immutable truth that all men are created equal and that therefore freedom is an inalienable right, that in a state which a man exists for the use of another is an unnatural state and an undefined power to be exercised by one human being over another is a danger and unnatural power. But as these are general principles and perhaps neither politically applicable nor pertinent to the present discussion, i shall forebear the least commentary upon them. So buddino seemed to be telling the southerners we tolerate your right to property and persons but we do not support the principle of enslaving these persons. This kind of talk hardly constituted a secure promise to slaverys defenders. If to these middle atlantic representatives, the antislavery thrust of American Revolutionary thought was unconnected to the house debate, to the lower southerners, this same rhetoric was not an abstract or theoretical threat. The antislavery petitions turned the principals into a tangible specter threatening to tear apart the very fabric of slaveholding southern life. In turn, lower southern congressmen felt compelled to defend slavery as the normal state for a people they rendered an inferior race, incapable of living as free citizens in the american republic. There was one house member who joined support for the petitioners with the willingness to entertain the possibility of broad federal powers over the issue of slavery. Unfortunately, there is not a portrait of him. So well have to imagine. On march 22nd, thomas scott of pennsylvania, the most strident promotor of antislavery petitions during the february debates broke a long silence and spoke out on the issue for the first time in over a month. Scott listed a series of hypothetical scenarios to illustrate the expansive view of the implied Powers Congress held over the slave trade premised on the general welfare cause of the constitution which we heard referenced in the petitions. Scott acknowledged that congress was explicitly prohibited from stopping the importation of slaves for at least 20 years. But what if congress determined that the persons imparted by the states possessed, quote, inadmissible qualities such as the plague . Could not congress by the Fair Construction of the constitution stop the admission of such people. Or what if one of the states attempted to import, quote, alien enemies with arms to destroy the union. Would not congress be justified and empowered to intervene and stop this calamity from taking place. Scott had watched as representatives from South Carolina and georgia insisted that the, quote, wretched africans were property and not people. If congress were to grant them this claim, could not the federal government, under the powers of regulating trade and commerce, quote, declare them slaves, contraband goods and put a stop to the slave trade. As for the relationship of race to slavery, congress had recently passed the naturalization act, giving the rights of citizenship to immigrants who were free white persons only. Yet, as the rule of naturalization was a, quote, arbitrary rule of congress, scott reminded the house that future congresses could, quote, whenever they please, rewrite the law and declare that every person, whether black, white, blue or red, be not only free persons but free citizens. In short, scotts reading of the constitution empowered the federal government with the ability to end the slave trade and declare africans imported into the country citizens. Therefore, breaking down the barriers between free and white and black and slave at any Time Congress should choose. This sort of thinking exemplified the stuff of nightmares for lower southern congressmen. And the slaveholding citizens that these congressmen represented. As the president of the Washington County Abolition Society of pennsylvania, scotts words captured most fully the racially inclusive vision of the young republic held by the antislavery petitioners, the very vision that has caused slaverys defenders to counter that enslavement was the only appropriate state for africans and black americans and that slavery was thereby an institute fully compatible with the new nation. For James Jackson, scotts comments only confirm what he had known all long. The antislavery petitions represented a complete assault on the institution of slavery. Therefore, while many house members accused the lower southerners of displaying undue trepidation in the fiery reactions to the petitions and the report, for jackson it was, quote, the reality, not the bugbear which we have raised. Jackson spoke for the lower south contingent when he relayed his concern that the principles embodied in the petitions and evident in the words of congressman like scott 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, slaveholder congressmen, fear if the door is once opened that their property is not secured. And if congress once opened this door, i contend that there is no bound at which they may stop. In the end, neither the petitions nor the lower southerners could claim total victory. Following three days of debate on the reports individual clauses, on march 23rd, 1790, the full house came to an agreement. On the houses motion, the house voted to substitute the word until with prior to in the first clause. This maneuver kept intact verbatim the constitutions original construction on the slave trade. The revised version read, quote, that the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now think proper to admit cannot be prohibited by Congress Prior to the year 1808. This change was a response to lower southern concerns that the reports original language of until assumed that the slave trade would be abolished in 1808 when, in fact, congress was not obligated to end the International Slave trade at all. The revised resolutions relating to the abolition and internal regulation of slavery also favored the lower southerners. On a motion by madison, the second and third clauses were struck out and the new exclusive jurisdiction of overseeing slavery to the individual states of the union. The redrafted provision read, quote, that congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves for in the treatment of them within any of the states, remaining with the several states alone to provide regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require. As is indicated from madisons role in amending the causes related to emancipation and ending the slave trade, the protestations of the georgians and South Carolina to the report had forced virginian 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 of those from the lower south, had asserted that the power to emancipate slaves lay with the federal government. So this revised clause only restated what nearly every National Politician believed. Additionally, while William Lawton smith proposed eliminating the word humanity from the revised resolution related to the emancipation of slaves, his motion did not pass. Smith sought unsuccessfully to rid 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 Congress to consider the petitions. Then they tried and failed to substitute the original report with a statement that congress should once again refuse to consider the petitions. Then a majority of georgias and South Carolinas representatives unsuccessfully opposed 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 antislavery agitators. Most unsatisfyingly from the perspective of those such as James Jackson and smith, in spite of the long monologs defending slavery, not one congressman outside of georgia or South Carolina acquiesced in pronouncing human bondage a just institution. In fact, several representatives expressed shock that any dignified statesman would dare to argue for the moral legitimacy of human bondage and its in this way that the petitioners triumphed in the battle of anti and proslavery principles. Successfully broadcasting their values on a natural level. That underlying ideas theoretical to slavery survive the debates intact explains why the Vice President of the pennsylvania Abolition Society, james pemberton, could conclude that the whole episode had, quote, served to disseminate our principles and led to a, quote, more general assent to those truths we wish to propagate. This in turn signaled to peoplerton that the quote, time was not very distant when these principles would be, quote, universally received and firmly established. To conclude, putting aside trying to identify the winners and losers in this First Congressional tussle over mesh slavery, the legacy was pivotal ways in which it sets the terms for future National Battles over the peculiar institution and its place in the american nation. From the missouri crisis of 1819 to the dred scott decision of 1857. To lincolns commitment to the essential natural rights of slaves during the famed Lincoln Douglas debates, to alexander stevensons assertion that the confederate nation was founded on a belief in inherent black inferiority. The fundamental elements over a seven decades long divisive battle over slavery and race in America First emerged in the house of representatives at the inaugural meeting of congress. Thank you. [ applause ] any questions . What was at stake here . I mean, the petition was not a bill that yes. Could have accomplished anything, am i correct . These were resolutions. And this is another thing. These resolutions expressed the feelings of one congress on interpreting the constitution. Right. At one given moment in time. Having said that, right, the constitution says that the slave trade could not be ended before 1808 but does give powered to regulate the slave trade and 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 imported slaves. So theres that sort of slaves and so there is that sort of tangible reality but again my argument here is that this is really about laying out the principles in the debate. And we have to remember, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 steered clear of a lot of these sort of principled arguments and it gave no clear victory to antislavery. It gave victories to proslavery but no guarantee in the absolute sanctity of Property Rights and slaves. So when the First Congress meets theres sort of this large debate thats going on, right, based on which principles would win out. Anti or pro slavery principles. But youre right to say the resolutions ultimately were really a measure of how one congress was interpreting, right, how the constitution could be applied to the institution of slavery. Kind of a followup. So why did Congress Actually even have to consider these petitions. I mean, if someone submits a petition to congress, why couldnt they just ignore it . They could have. And in fact, chuck, who introduced me and heads up the society, has written on this very fact, showing how the antislavery petitioners played an essential role in sort of establishing the petitions to congress could be about moral issue, right . Because petitions during the First Congress and up to this point, in the second session the second session of the First Congress, had been based really on individual claims, right. Individual claims of revolutionary war soldiers trying to collect pensions or other things like that. But this of course was a larger huge issue. Right. And the quakers, in getting their petitions heard, and getting any resolutions and getting a debate in a sense, established that the federal government could take up moral issues. And, of course, the federal government would do that through the early years of the republic, through all kinds of issues. Temperance. The womans movement. Further antislavery. All the way up to today with issues like, you know, questions of abortion rights. And so this was a Pivotal Moment in that way as well. Yes. Thank you very much. It was very illuminating. And im here from my book club. There are two members from my book club, africanamerican literary guild, and at the moment we are reading the new book on antislavery racist ideas in america by ingram kendy, last years book award yes, i have that on my book shelf as well, so i need to get to it. It is quite a read. So you talk about the northern states having abolished slavery in their jurisdictions by a certain date. So that assumes that there was slavery in the north. There absolutely was. So why did they become truer to the american ideals versus the lower Southern States . Was it Just Economics that made them say that slavery wasnt quite worth it because it wasnt working for them . Northern states. Yeah. So certainly the quick and easy answer is to say that it is all dependent on what the proportion of the slaveholders are in any given society, right. So there are many more slaveholders who hold a lot more power politically, economically and socially in states like georgia and South Carolina than in states like pennsylvania and new york. So that is sort of the easiest answer. However, we need to also remember that, in fact, just getting emancipation statutes passed in states like pennsylvania and especially in new york and new jersey were long, heated battles. Where, in fact, a lot of this sort of rhetoric and a lot of this sort of back and forth between those opposed to slavery and those in favor of it played out. And so slavery was not easy to abolish anywhere in the american republic. It was a very difficult battle wherever one turned. But the pennsylvania Abolition Society, as i mentioned, is totally sort of locked in to this battle. And so theyre sort of taking their experience and their ideals and their principles as theyve formed them, right, over the course of already a number of years in fighting against save slavery, and again trying to bring those principle and ideals to the absolutely everywe in the United States. Yes . Benjamin franklins role, was the pennsylvania petition has been given as much attention if Benjamin Franklin hadnt been the president of that society . Thats a good question. We saw that the quaker petitions, right theres two petitions from quaker yearly meetings that were also presented, and these quaker yearly meetings had nothing to do with franklin, right . He did not sign that petition. So on the one hand we could say that they were hurt, so that his role wasnt necessary for them to be heard. However, his signature on that document, okay, acts to sort of signal again to congress that these principles of the pennsylvania a pennsylvania Abolition Society have greater nation willal curr and relevance. Thats sort of the role that his signature and involvement played. And that, in fact, was the very important one in, again, this attempt to sort of project Larger National congruence with the pennsylvania Abolition Society. One other things, James Jackson accused franklin of being senile, saying this was the only way he possibly could have signed the petition. He got his revenge. He wrote a satire in a local newspaper imagining an algerian politician defending the slavery of christians 100 years before. Of course, franklin, the master of satire was showing not only he responded directly to jackson, he also showed jackson he still had his full faculties about him. This was really the last act of ben i cant mind franklin because he died only weeks after writing this editorial. Yes. I saw a hand back there. More globally, what kind of discussion or debates were happening in europe at this time . Did they in any way inform the american debate . Yes. Hopefully you got when i read the pennsylvania abolition study petition at length, they are pointing out that there are abolition societies that have emerged throughout the larger Atlantic World or what we call europe. So the London Society emerged in this period and, in fact, is closely corresponding with the pennsylvania Abolition Society. There is a society in paris which is also emerged and is also corresponding. In fact, one of its leading advocates makes a trip over to philadelphia and new york to correspond and to meet and to create more sort of a joint effort between all of these abolition societies. So it is an important point to remember that, in fact, this debate and sort of antislavery activities involving the institution of slavery were actually unfolding on a much broader landscape beyond the United States. But, again, the pennsylvania Abolition Society pointed to this and said, look, right, 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, of course, it is on the defensive and will be on the defensive as the haitian revolution emerges, right . Which has really just was just about to begin, at its earliest stages a year after this debate. This was absolutely part of this broader global discussion. Yes . Thank you so much for the information. Sure. I appreciate your research. Thank you for coming. Every time i hear something about slavery, you know, you learn something new. One of the things that i rarely hear about is in addition to the moral, physical, the mental degradation of the human being of color was the sexual abuse as well. That seems to get pushed to the back of the story. Oh, by the way, there were x number of adultery, incestual just i call it ugly. Here we have children born that were never recognized, shall i say, and counted as members of the society. So that is huge. Yeah. To be left at the bottom. Yes. I would wish that it would come up further. No, and i certainly dont mean to imply no, not you. No, but in general. I didnt say that you thought i was saying that, but in jenny total general i totally agree with you. This was a fact that abolitionists were pointing to and especially would point to by the 1830s when slavery is interpreted by white northerners as being especially offensive by the way it breaks up family, by the way it promotes sexual abuse of female slaves that were disempowered. Those arguments are beginning in their infant stages in this period, but by the 1830s this is a key argument that abolitionists are making, by the way it degrades and dehumanizes sexually women and creates and adds to, right, the slave population, right, for a master. So theres, of course, an economic interest also in masters, right, sexually violating their slaves. But, yes, it is an important factor. Yes . I think you alluded to this. Wasnt one of the end results of this debate that congress or the house at least then said, were just not going to consider any petitions on slavery anymore . Yeah. Yeah, so this is again, i sort of i alluded to this in the opening, right. Some historians argued this was sort of a prelude to the gag rule. So the gag rule really fully emerges later in the 1830s as abolition in the north has emerged much more strongly and you have a flood of petitions coming to congress. Theres no absolute answer to that. In a lot of ways, yes, it is setting a precedent that is saying, look, antislavery petitions are not going to be handled exactly in this way to come. It is true that a year later the next congress, these petitioners try again and the lower southerners smartly are on the committee considering it and table the petition. They have adopted this strategy, and in a lot of ways slavery on the National Level is not going to sort of burst out in this way continually. However, i want to make clear that the slavery issue was not silent on the National Level at all. In fact, 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 completely silent at the National Level. Even if, right, the petitions are sort of gagged in a certain way in the years following this. Required people to look at the and theres plenty of dimensions to look at. One thing i would remind you, if you go ahead and study this episode further is to remember you allude to it in the context of the wider Atlantic World, whats going on. Theres a lot going on in congress at this time, right . Sure. Nothing is debated in congress ever, ever in a vacuum. We dont need to be reminded of that, but in this particular case, for those who have seen hamilton right. Then you know hamiltons report on public credit is being debated at the same time. So tensions in congress are already amped up. Here you have the crazy quakers and senile old ben franklin throwing this potential constitutional proposal at congresss feet and things start to ignite. Bear it in mind. Im reminded, unless im wrong about this, that there are good and bad sides to the antislavery debate being dragged out. Some people are saying, oh, this is a titanic waste of time, we have other more important things. Unless im wrong, fitzsimmons of pennsylvania saying, lets drag it out a bit more because we have colleagues from pennsylvania to weigh in on the vote. Yeah, sure. Theres all of these other things going on which makes history exciting. Thauchg f thank you for sharing that with us. Thank you all. [ applause ] coming up, on cspan3s American History tv, a look at womens history. Well start with a conversation on women in the white house, including former first Lady Florence harding. Then a discussion on the womens suffrage movement. Later, a historical account of phillis wheatley, an 18th century slave who later became the First Published africanamerican poet. Cspans washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up wednesday morning, chief economist and cofounder of moodyseconomy. Com discusses the potential debt ceiling fight and its possible effect on wall street. Georgetown University Professor kellie widener talks about the future of the Childrens Health insurance program. Ian murray with the Competitive Enterprise Institute reviews their recent report on shrinking the executive branch. Be sure to watch cspans washington journal live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern wednesday morning. Join the discuss. Next, president ial historians discuss first ladies, their relationships with their spouses, their influence and the challenges they faced in the white house. This is hosted by the new york Historical Society. Good even, everyone. Welcome to the new york Historical Society. Im louise merritt, the new york Historical Society president and ceo. Im pleased to see you all in our beautiful auditorium this evening. Tonights Program Women in the white house is a part of our bernard and Irene Schwartz distinguished speaker series. I would like to thank mr. Schwartz for his great and generous support which enabled us to bring so many fine historians and writers to this stage. [ applause ]