Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 2 (of 16)United States. Congress
History
Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 2 (of 16)
United States. Congress
Law -- United States; United States -- Politics and government
GEORGE LEONARD, from Massachusetts, appeared, and took his seat.
_Manumitted Slaves._
[Mr. SWANWICK presented the petition of Jacob Nicholson and
Jupiter Nicholson, Job Albertson and Thomas Pritchet, dated
at Philadelphia, stating that they had been the slaves of
persons in Perquimans County, North Carolina, who had
manumitted them, and whose surname they took--that
afterwards they had been seized by other persons and sold
into slavery under a law of the State--that to escape from
this bondage they had fled to Philadelphia, where they had
been seized under the fugitive slave act: and pray relief
from Congress.]
The petition being read--
Mr. SWANWICK said, he hoped it would be referred to a select committee.
Mr. BLOUNT hoped it would not even be received by the House. Agreeably
to a law of the State of North Carolina, he said they were slaves, and
could, of course, be seized as such.
Mr. THATCHER thought the petition ought to be referred to the Committee
on the Fugitive Law. He conceived the gentleman much mistaken in
asserting these petitioners to be absolute slaves. They state that they
were slaves, but that their masters manumitted them, and that their
manumissions were sanctioned by a law of that State, but that a
subsequent law of the same State, subjected them to slavery; and if even
there was a law that allowed them to be taken and sold into slavery
again, he could not see any propriety in refusing their petition in
that House--THEY CERTAINLY (said Mr. T.) ARE FREE PEOPLE. It appeared
they were taken under the fugitive act, which he thought ought not to
affect them; they now came and prayed the House so to model that
fugitive act, as to prevent its affecting persons of their description.
He therefore saw great propriety in referring their petition to the
committee appointed to amend that act in another part; they could as
well consider its relation to the present case. He could not see how
there would be a propriety in rejecting their petition; they had an
undoubted right to petition the House, and to be heard.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 2 (of 16) — John Shaqi
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account