several decades. this is just under an hour. >> today, we're going to start with paul polgar, who is a long time colleague of mine. he started interning with the first federal congress project a long time ago. i won't even -- you know, he's not sensitive about his age. he's too young yet to be that. but it seemed like it was a long time ago and we were able to see him take some of the stuff he worked with in our office, that covers the first federal congress period, develop that and work it into his ph.d dissertation which is the basis for his first book coming out under unc press, a well grounded hope, abolishing slavery and racial inequality in early america. he teaches at university of mississippi and he's really fortunate to have him come up here to d.c. before i bring him to the podium, i wan to thank other people who made this lunchtime lecture series a truly national event with a scope that goes beyond this area code. we have a visitor from the west coast, a good friend and a wonderful friend from new york city, for some reason i'm for getting your name. >> john. >> john. i'm sorry. and maurice solerno that represents the -- the federal hall site 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 let's welcome paul polgar. [ applause ] >> thank you, chuck for that introduction. i would like to thank the u.s. capitol historical society for inviting me here today. so my talk today entitled congress's 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 a stretching all the way to the outbreak of the civil war. but again the subject of the talk will really focus 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 congress to take anti-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 after slavery in various ways. some have pointed to the role of these debates in establishing the gag rule that would go on to silence future anti-slavery petitions to congress. others have highlighted the congressional resolution resulting from the debate. arguing they would foreclose anti-slavery action on the forward level and represent a lost opportunity for legislature against slavery in early america. still others have down played the supposed victory insisting that the debated concluded with anti-slavery victory, namely the assertion that congress could regulate the slave trade. yet with all of the interpretations ashare is an implicit assumption that the debate was settle on jurisdiction over slavery in the slave trade. whatly argue today is that the heart of this debate was a struggle not simply or even primarily overconstitutional or congressional provisions but over fundamental principals. on one side stood those human over property rights and imagined american revolutionaryoy deals as applicable to those with black skin. in a series of petitions that generated this heated debate, anti-slavery activities and especially the pennsylvania on ol is society put forth a vision of a new nation that had a racially inclusive republic whe where the rights were respected. and congressmen from the lower south and i'm referring to georgia and south carolina and they answered the rhetoric of the petitioners by underlining the sanctity of property rights of depicting slaver slaves as -- slaves as inferior and unfit for the petition that was a natural right of all. thus congress's first debate over slavery exposed a rift over the meaning of race and place of human bondage in the american nation. a rift over principles that would shape the contours of the nation's growing division regarding the peculiar institution for generations to come. after a hard-fought 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 blue print for forward 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, located in lower manhattan in what is now the financial district. so such issues as creating a national financial system, funding the revolutionary war debts and locating a permanent seat of government were some of the most important subjects tackled by the nation's first congress. one topic, however, that the congress did not expect to address was slavery. the forward convention of 1787 had resulted in a constitution that gave noin disputable victory to other pro or anti-slavery interests. as with many divisive subjects, standing in the way of creating a stronger union, the federal constitution retained enough ambiguity to allow states to -- excuse me, 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. other 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 anti-slave trade ped petitions from their quaker yearly meetings. they were the leading religious group and opposed to slavery in this period. these two petitions forcefully argued that the slave trade violated the sanctity of the social compact and debased and dehumanized all those who took part in it. quote, trafficking in our -- in the trafficking of our fellow men, one of the petitions read was, quote, inhuman tyranny, abhorrent to common humanity and destructive to, quote, the virtue and happiness of the people. in asking the first congress to turn their attention to a, quote, case so interesting to the rights of mep, the petitions wanted the house, to quote, exert the full extent of your power in discouraging the abominable commerce that was the slave trade. if the petitions of february 11th sent tremors through the house when a third anti-slavery petition, this time from the pennsylvania abolition society reached the floor the following day it would register as a massive earthquake. whereas the previous petitions called them to examine the slave trade, the pennsylvania petition addressed the house in much broad and to lower southern legislatures more threatening abolitionist terms. and i have here an image of the petition as it was submitted to congress. now, it's worth quoting from this petition at length to capture the scope of its attack on human bondage so i will quote now at leng from this petition. from a regard for the happiness of mankind in soerks was formed several years ago in this state and here they are referring to the pennsylvania abolition society, adjust and accurate conception of the true principals of liberty as it spread through the land produced many friends to their cause and in a legislature 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 refer to the pennsylvania abolition act of 1780. they, the petitioners have the satisfaction to observe in consequence of that spirit of philanthropy and general liberty cl is diffusing, similar institutes are gradually forming both at home and abroad. that mankind are formed like the objects of his care and for the enjoyment of happy iness, the christian religion teaches us to believe and the creed of america coincides with this belief. your memorialist have observed with great satisfaction that many important powers are vested in you for -- and here they quoted the constitution -- promoting the welfare and security of the liberty to the people of united states. and as they conceive that these blessings ought to rightfully be administered to all descriptions of people so they indulge themselves in the pleasing expectation that nothing which could 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 influenced by the strong ties of humanity and the principles of their institution, your memorialist loosen the bounds of slavery and promote a general enjoyment of the bressings of freedom and you will be pleased to counten nance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage and removing this inconsistency from the american people and promote mercy and justice toward this distressed race and that will you step to the very verge of the powers vested in you for discouraging every species of traffic in the person's of our fellow men. and the petition would have been read out loud just like that. and in fact, it was read by the speaker of the house, frederick muhlenberg. so we have to imagine, as we see the lower southerns, receiving this. and then we'll sort of understand their response. while the petition technically here asked the house to apply the jurisdictional powers over the slave trade specifically, it aims, as you've all heard now, were much more encompassing. the pennsylvania abolition society led the anti-slavery movement in the state, pennsylvania as i mentioned before had passed a gradual emancipation law in 1780 and the society was worked to incorporate former shrives into the republic as citizens caller the nation at large the abolition society projected confidence that the course of history was on its side. right, it is referencing the abolition act and referencing there are societies forming both at home and internationally, there is a real sense of confidence in this petition. the petition argued that people of african decent weren indict tooitle to an equal liberty with their free white counterparts. and em fazig the equal humanity of slaves rather than the status as property and they urged congress to approach the topic of slavery in this light. moreover, the petition linked the founding principles of the new nation or what it called the political creed of america, with the cause of slavery's abolition and to clinch this point, the pennsylvania abolition society had its president and a leading figure of american national identity sign the document. and you could see here in the bottom right corner, franklin's signature, for those of you who don't spend your days reading 18th century handwriting, take my word for it, that is indeed benjamin franklin's signature, the president of the society. in sum, the petition asked the house not only to assert its 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. and here i wanted to show you the seal of the pennsylvania abolition society which i thinken cap ated the society and a slave having broken his chains is standing up and this white activist taking the slave bit hand, they are standing side by side. so in sum, 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 this larger vision. now, whereas lower southern congress men who we will hear from, denounce it and members from the atlantic and new england states saw what they saw as the foresight of the petitioners. thomas scott of pennsylvania projected a strong voice of support for the anti-slavery petitions. in answering a lower southern's kons contention that they were a species of property. scott pronounced it was 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 trade on 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, i am sure i would go as far as coy in emancipating them. alieas bud know seconded the sentiments of scott and recommended that the petitions be referred to a committee. after two days of tension-filled debate, the house voted to commit the petitions to a special committee for consideration. the select committee charged with drafting a report on the anti-slavery petitions completed their work on march 1st and submitted to the house the product of their deliberation four days later. the first cause of the report reiterated the constitution's pledge to refrain from interfering with the slave trade about 1708. and the second clause staid -- stated that congress could not interfere with the eman pation within the period mentioned or 1808. now this section of the report was interpreted by williams lotten smith of south carolina as leaving open the possibility that after 1808, congress could not only ban the slave trade but regulate and perhaps end slavery altogether. the report's third profession granted that only the individual states could make laws relating to the education, the morality, religion and overall welfare of their slaves, even as that -- even as the report encouraged the states to, quote, promote the happiness of the slaves. the fourth, fifth and sixth provisions recognized the federal government's right to tax slaves imported into the united states and to regulate the foreign slave trade. and then finally the seventh clause endorsed the anti-slavery intentions of the petitioners. informing them that in quote, all cases where congress could advance their humane objects bapsed on the principles of justice and humanity and good policy, they would do so. to low -- to the lower southerns who had opposed considering the petition and to table the petition and silence them. any report was bound to disappoint. especially disturbing was a second clause which could be read as opening the door to federally sanctions emancipation. even though every congressman who spoke in the debates would deny the powers of the federal government to abolish slavery on the state level. additionally, the final clause implied solidarity and appeared to support the petitioner's code of ethics. they succeeded in tabling the report temporarily 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 for slavery, it is very important that we first acknowledge the defensive position that these congressmen found these selves 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 believe 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 mid-atlantic neighborhood and would do so with the passage of abolition acts in 1709 and 1804. and in virginia and maryland, the declining tobacco economy has led to the freeing of thousands of slaves through lifted restrictions on slave holder's ability to liberate their chattel. and only south carolina and georgia appeared committed to the long-term presence of slavery in independent america. furthermore, there was no, what we could call, solid south political alignment or unabashedly committed to slavery at this time. revealingly virginia was often lumped together by national politicians with the middle states of new york and pennsylvania. a mix of the rhetorical championing of the revolution ally deals by the leading political figures an the state's economic self-interest, virginia had an excess of slaves and stood to gain economically from any congressional action taken against the slave trade. all of this meant that lower southerns could not count on their upper southern neighbors to offer support for slavery. taking into account these factors, lower southern members of house must have been greatly alarmed by the pennsylvania abolition society petition which was read before the house in that it urged congress to apply the society's principles as a guide to dealing with the issue of slavery on the national level. finding themself boxed in politically, congress men from south carolina and georgia would feel compelled to combat the principles of the anti-slavery petitions with what they views as a principal defense of slavery. slavery's proponents relied on a bevy of arguments in defending bondage. repeatedly lower southerns attack the quaker ass miss guided and submersive. the remain of neutral showed them to be cowardly traitors, poising as objectives as they brought into question the loyalty to the american public. lower southerners attacked the anti-slavery messengers in attempt to particularize the cause of abolition as a product of a religious sect rather than a universal one connected with the meaning of american independence. yet, on its own, sullying the character of the quakers left the content of their petitions unanswered. slavery's defenders also talked to ancient and revered sources. both greek and [ inaudible ] prad iktss slavery. every civilization perm fitted bondage, the lower southernsin sited. this carried little weight. in a country that was already celebrating itself identified exceptional nature endorsements from the past remained hol yes. the slavery defenders scoured the good book por passages that con troened slavery and recited to their colleagues as doing just that. but turning to the bible was a mixed blessing for slavery's defenders. anti-slavery activists could harvestality trueism and benef lense and answering slavery advocates. inconclusive effect of the strategies then in defending slavery left the lower southerns to tap economic utility, political compromise, property rights, and race. political compromise, the federal constitution was bapsed on balancing various state interests and economic utility only people of africa ran decent could work in the lower south lacked a rational for shoring up slavery and did not counter the petitioners slams of underlying -- claims of underlying black quality. this left properties rights and race. as we shall see, in defending american slavery, the lauer southerns would merge calls of property rights with racialin fierierity and lack of capacity for freedom. on march 16th, tucker of south carolina 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 intentioning to injure some of the state's of the union. james jackson of georgia regarding byes a colleagues as a cantankerous and fiery orator, seconded the motion and spoke for over an hour and here is a portrait of james jackson. attesting to the sanctity of property rights b he asked his clegs if the rights of property are not adequate to the rights of person. 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. he was pushed back against the emphasis on the natural rights of slaves to predom. but jacks went beyond under storing this to the founding of the new nation. to counter the portrait of the equal humanity of slave, he laid out his version of the nature of in slaved africans and african-american. the west african countries from which slaves followed was a social model in which a king exercised authority over the property and persons of all of those in his dominion, according to jackson. thus, africans were habitu ated from the earliest experiences in what jackson considered barbaric africa and that universally em binded even with their mother's milk this elixir of servitude and their disposition to fall under and serve as slaves. to further augment, jackson turned to the prospect of emancipation. if they were sleeved, what next. he pointed out that thomas jefferson had already examined the question of slavery's abolition and concluded that should slaves be liberated within greater american society, quote, deep rooted prejudice entertained by the whites, long held animosity 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 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 on going slaves resulted in a growing fro population and those liberated were stealing rather than working, becoming common pick pockets and only harm the greater societies in which they were freed. and jackson warned that has this 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 nature's intended design for africans. unconditional bondage. following jackson's speech, the members of the house present voted down tucker's proposed amendment to the report. so the report continued to be debated and considered. during the next day's debate, smith and dennis burk representing south carolina aggressive will defended slavery. both echoed jacks's depiction as inferior and naturally fit for bondage. by advocating emabs pation, the petitioners were doing an act of inhumanity to the slaves. during the late revolution, america witnesses how unfit people of african decent were for freedom and at that time the commander lord cornwall is conferred liberty as he swept through the countryside but burk claimed most of these former slaves died in mass, there by demonstrated, quote, how totallyin cape --- incapable thy are of gaining 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 slavery's abolition to strengthen his justification for slavery and he too turned to thomas jefferson. jefferson, a man of quote, enlightened understanding had already proven blacks, quote, by nature and inferior race of beings even to the indians. the policy evident in jefferson's note on the state of virginia, made the goal of emancipation a fatal enterprise and a direct threat to the well being of the nation's white population. should the nation eradicate slavery and admit black people into white society it would permanently alter the character for the worst and stain the blood of the whites. potential for a tate war manifested in horrendous prospect as that of racial intermixture according to smith. the incompatible of black and white to lead to a bloody battle with the strongest party, presumably the whites left to quote, murder the weaker. in smith's estimation, impose -- impose black freedom could never hold up in the face of nature plan for those of african decent. african-americans were ain dollent people, a diverse 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. well the petitioners argued that quote nature had made all men equal and here i'm quoting jackson, 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 prejudices labelling the petitioners as hypocrites and saying even the warmest friends to the blacks kept them at a distance. the inferiority seemed to be saying was a feature of nature but a social reality that would nullify any attempt to make former bonds persons free and equal. two of the anti-slavery petitioners most vocal proponents put forth ideological opposition to human bondage but so so in ways that -- at first glance seemed unthreatening to the institution of slavery. alie usa of new jersey and both with active slavery [ inaudible ]. even as they conceded that federal government was powerless to end slavery. and here is an illustration of buddino. he declared slavery incompatible with america's founding principles. the lower southerns he lectured could not more convince the former colonists that their subjection under english rule was just. furthermore, he 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 se - self-evident that all men with created equal and endowed with certain unalienable righted and among these are the life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. those words served as the quote, language of the america. he thus roundly rejected the efforts of jackson and smith to harmonize slavery with a new nation. at the same time as he denounced slavery, he reassured the lower southerns 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 he failed to understand is that to the lower southerns, 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 not aapplicable to the subject at hand. viewing the question as it regards general principles, i hold it to be a truth that all men are created equal and freedom is an unalible right that in a state which a man exists for the use of another is an unnatural state and a power to be exerciseid is a danger and unnatural powerment but as these are general principles an perhaps neither politically applicable or pertinent to the present discussion, i will shall forebear the left comment your a upon them. so buddino seemed to be telling the southerners we tolerate your right to -- to enslaving these persons. this kind of talk hardly constituted a secure promise to the slavery defenders. if to these middle atlantic representatives, the anti-slavery thrust of american thought was unconnected to the house debate, this same rhetoric was not an abstractor threat. the anti-slavery petition turned the principals into a tangible specter threatening to tear apart the very fabric of slave holding southern life. in turn, lower southern congressmen felt compelled to defe defend slavery as a normal state for what they rentered an interferer casein cable of living in the american republic. there was one house member who joined support for the pet. >>s with the willingness to entertain the possibility of broad federal powers over the issues of slavery. unfoerpt fortuna -- there is no him. so we'll have to imagine. on march 22nd, thomas scott of pennsylvania, the most strident promotor of anti-slavery petitions during the federal debates broke along silence and spoke out for the first time in over a month. he listed a series of hypothetical scenarios to illustrate the expansive view of the imprime ministered pours held over the slave trade on the welfare cause of the constitution which we heard references in the petitions. scott acknowledged that congress was prohibited from stopping the importation of slavers for at least 20 years. but what if congress determined that the persons imported by the states possessed, quote,in admissibility 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 in em pow erd to interview and stop this from taking place. scott had watched as a representatives from south carolina and georgia insisted that the, quote, retched 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 nationalization act. giving the rights of citizenship to migrants would were free white persons only. yet, as the rule of nationalization was a arbitrary rule of congress, scott reminded that the house that future congresses would, quote, whenever they please, rewrite the law and declare that every person, whether black, white, blue or red, be not only fr person -- prefree persons but free citizens. reading empowered the federal government with the ability to end the slave trade and declares africans citizens and break 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 congress men. and the slave holding citis that they represented. as the president of the washington abolition society of pennsylvania, he captured the racially inclusive vision of the young republic held by the anti-slavery petitioners, the very vision that has caused defenders to counter that enslavement was the only appropriate state for africans an black americans and that slavery was there by an institute fully compatible with the new nation. for james jackson, scott's comments only confirm what he had known all long. the anti-slavery petitions represented a complete assault on the institution of slavery. therefore, while many house members accused the lower southerns of displaying trepidation in the fiery reactions, for jackson it was, quote, the reality, not the bug bear which we have raised. jackson spoke for the lower south contingent when he relayed his concern that the principles and body 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, slave holder congress men, fear the door is once opened that their property is not secure. and if congress once opened this door, i contend that there is no bound in which they may stop. in the end, neither the petitions nor the lower southerners could claim total victories. following three days of debate on the reports individual clauses, on march, 23, 1790, they came to an agreement. or the motion, the house voted to substitute the word until with prior to in the first clause. this maneuver kept in tact verbatim the constitution's original construction on the slave trade. the revised version read 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 10808. this was a response to lower southern concerns that the errors originally language of until assumed that the slave trade would be abolished in 1808 which in fact congress was not obligated to end the international slave trade at all. the revised resolutions relating to the abolition of slavery also favored the lower southerners. an -- on a motion, the second and third clauses were struck out and the new exclusive jurisdiction if overseeing slavery to the individual states of the union. the provision read, quote, that kog have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaver slaves for in the treatment of them within any of the states, remaining with the several states alope to provide regulations there in which humanity and true policy may require. as is indicated from the role in amending the causes, related to emancipation. the protest 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 slave holders 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 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 southerns did not get what they hoped for. first, they didn't want congress to consider the petitions. then they tried and failed to substitute the other nall report with a statement that congress should once again refuse to consider the petitions. then a majority of georgia's and south carolina 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 anti-slavery agitators. most unsatisfactoryingly 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 in this way that the petitions triumph in the battle of anti-and proslavery principles broadcasting on a natural level that underlying ideas survive the debates in tact 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 institution in the nation. from the crisis of 1819 to the dred scott and to the lincoln commitment to the rights of the enslaved during the famed lincoln-douglas debated to alexander stevenson's assertion that the confederate nation was con funded -- was founded on a belief in inherent blackin fear your ortity and the fundamental elements over slavery and race in america first emerged in the house of representatives at the inaugural meeting of congress. thank you. [ applause ] . >> me questions? >> what was at stake here? the petition was not a bill that -- that could have accomplished anything. >> tease were resolutions. and this is another thing. 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 could not be ended before 1808 but does give powered to regul regulate the slave trade and there was a bill passed a few years later regulating the foreign slave trade, attacks could be applied to imported 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 principaled arguments and it gave no clear victory to anti-slavery [ inaudible ]. it gave victories to proslavery but no guarantee in the absolute sanctity of property rights and slaves. so when the first congress meets there is a large debate that going on based on which principal pels would win out. and anti- or pro slavery principles but it was i measure of how one congress was interpreted how the constitution could be applied to the constitution of slavery. >> so why did congress actually even have to consider these petitions? if someone submits a petition to congress, couldn't they just ignore it. >> they could have. and in fact, chuck, who introduced me and heads up the society, has written on this fact showing how the petitions played an essential role in sort of establishing the petitions to congress that could be about moral issues. 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. and the quakers in getting their petitions heard and getting any resolution or debate 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 of the tem pourance and women's movement and further anti-slavery up to today with issues like questions of abortion rights. and so this was a pivotal moment in that way as well. >> thank you very much. it was very illuminating. and i'm here from my book club. there are two members from my book club, african-american literary guild and we are reading anti-slavery and racist ideas in america by -- by mckendy, last years -- >> i have that on my bookshelf as well. >> 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 wasn't quite worth it because it wasn't working. >> northern states. so certainly the quick and easy answer is to say that it is all dependent on what the proportion of the slave hoerldsar in any given society. so there are many more slave hoerlds who hold a lot more power politically and 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 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 bollish 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 their sort of taking their experience and their die i deals as they've formed them. over the course of of already a number of years in fighting against slavery. and again, trying to bring those principles and those ideas to the national level. but yes, slavery is difficult to abolish everywhere in the united states. >> benjamin franklin's role would the pennsylvania petition have been given as much attention if benjamin franklin hadn't been the president of that society? >> it is a good question. we saw -- we saw that the quaker petitions, there are two petitions from quaker yearly meeting that were also presented and these quaker yearly meetings had nothing to do with franklin. right. and he did not sign that petition. so the one hand we could say that they were hurt. so that his role wasn't necessary for them to be hurt. however his signature on that document, okay, acts to sort of signal again to congress that these principles of the of the pennsylvania apligz society have greater national currency and relevance. and so that's sort of the role that his signature and involvement played. and that in fact was a very important one in this, again, attempt to sort of project larger national congruence with the pennsylvania abolition society's influence. i just want to say a couple or more things on jackson. he accused him of being senile. and franklin got his revenge. he wrote a satire in a local newspaper imagining an algerian politician defending the slavery of christians a hundred years before. and of course franklin the master of satire was showing you're not om -- and he responded directly to jackson -- not only that he was countering jackson but he in fact still had his full faculties about him. and franklin died only week afrz writing this editorial. >> what kind of discussion or debates about slavery, what happened in europe at this time any way form the american debate? >> when i read the pennsylvania abolition society petition at length they are pointing out there are abolition societies that have emerged throughout the larger atlantic world, what we call europe. so the london society has emerged in this period. and in fact it's closely corresponding with the pennsylvania abolition society. there is a society in paris which has also emerged and also corresponding. and in fact one of its leading advocates makes a trip to meet and create more sort of a joint effort between all these abolition societies. so it's an important point to remember that in fact this debate in sort of anti-slavery 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, 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's on the defensive and will be on the defensive as the haitian revolution emerges, which is just about to begin in its early stages a year after this debate. so this was a broader part of this global discussion. >> thank you so much for the information. >> sure. >> i appreciate your research. and every time i hear something about slavery, you know you learn something new. but one of the things i rary hear about is that in addition to the moral, physical, mental degradation of the human being of color, was the sexual abuse as well. and that seems to pushed to the back of the story. oh, and by the way, there were x number of tapes and adultery. and here we have children that were born that were never recognized shall i say and counted as members of the society. so that is huge to be left at the bottom. i would wish that it would come up further. >> no, and i certainly don't mean to imply -- >> oh, not you. >> no, but in general i totally agree with you. and this in fact was a factor abolitionists were beginning to point and would especially point to by the 1830s when slavery is interpreted by white northerners by being especially offensive by the way it breaks up families and promotes sexual abuse of female slaves that were completely dissempowered. those were really just beginning in their infingerprint stamgs in this period. but by the 1930s, absolutely this was a key argument abolitionists were arguing that creates and really adds to, right, the slave population. so of course there's an economic interest also sexually violating their slaves. so yes, it's a very important factor. >> i think you alluded to this. wasn't one of the end debates is we're just not going to consider any petitions on slavery anymore? >> yeah, so this is again -- and i sort of alluded to this in the opening. some historians have argued this is sort of a prelude to the gag rule. so the gag rule only fully emerges later in the 1830s as abolition in the north emerges much more strongly. there's no absolute answer to that. in a lot of ways, yes, it is setting a precedence that's saying, look, anti-slavery petitions are not going oo be handled exactly this way to come. and it's true that a year later these petitioners try again. they're on the committee considering it, and they table the petitions. so they adopted the 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 also want to make clear the slavery wasn't silenced on the national level at all. yfgt, you can see debates regarding petitions or sometimes emerging indirectly with other issues. so it's not as though the slavery issue is completely silenced at the national level. even if, the petitions are sort of gagged in a certain way in the years following this. >> it inspired people to look at this debate more in all these dimensions, and there's plenty of dimensions to look at. one thing i would remind you if you go ahead and study this episode further, there's a lot going on in congress at this time. so nothing is debated in congress ever, ever. in this particular case for those of who you have seen hamilton and you know hamilton's report on public credit is being debated at the same time. so tengs are already amped up. so here you get the quakers and this senile ben franklin throwing this proposal, and things start to unite. so bear that in mind, i'm reminded there are good and bad sides to the anti-slavery debate being dragged out. some people are saying oh, this is titanic waste of time. we've got some colleagues in pennsylvania who aren't here to weigh in with the vote. so all of these things are going on which really make history exciting. and thank you for sharing that as well. >> yeah, thank you you all. [ applause ] c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. on tuesday the center for immigration studies takes a look at the immigration backlog which currently includes close to 6,000 unresolved cases. people familiar with the court system are part of the discussion, and you can watch live at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. later in the evening president trump heads to arizona for a rally in phoenix, his first visit to state since taking office. we have live coverage of the event starting at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can also watch online on c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. c-span on the road. asking attendees what's the most important issue to your state. >> what's really important to our state is that washington make sure we maintain healthcare for the poor, the elderly. we have to make sure if we replace health care, we must replace it with something that works. >> because of the fast increase in real estate increase particularly in our rural areas, our rural farmers are struggling to pay a very high property tax. how do we balance that with what's going on in the property tax and the needs for our schools? i'm on the appropriations committee, so that's one of the issues we're dealing with right now. >> and the most important issue facing our constituents today is unfortunately the opiate crisis. one day our kids will need therapy to explain how they've lost their education, how they've lost their family members and how they've lost other loved ones. we need more money and a declaration of an emergency. thank you. >> seems to me the most important issue facing our state is the partisanship thereat kee us from making any -- at least that's my take on it. thank you. >> one of our issues is to make sure that the bill will adhere to its policy of having representation of minorities and women. this is an issue we have tallied. and we feel it's very important and will be addressed in the 2018 legislative session. >> voices from the road on c-span. american history tv continues now with a look at the historical and political legacy of former house speaker newt gingrich. this was part of a two-day conference hosted by the library of congress. it's just under an hour and a half. >> this is our final panel on the congress