Anti-Slavery Opinions before the Year 1800: Read before the Cincinnati Literary Club, November 16, 1872Poole, William Frederick
History
Anti-Slavery Opinions before the Year 1800: Read before the Cincinnati Literary Club, November 16, 1872
Poole, William Frederick
Antislavery movements -- United States; Slavery -- United States
"_Second._ That Congress have no authority to interfere in the
emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, in any of the
States--it remaining with the several States alone, to provide any
regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require.
"_Third._ That Congress have authority to restrain the citizens of the
United States from carrying on the African trade, for the purpose of
supplying foreigners with slaves, and of providing, by proper
regulations, for the humane treatment during their passage of slaves
imported by the said citizens into the States admitting such
importation."
This was the first legislation on the subject of slavery in the new
Congress, and was carried by 29 votes to 25--North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Georgia voting unanimously in the negative. All the
other States (except Rhode Island, from which no member was present)
voted in the affirmative or divided. New Hampshire voted 1 yea, 1 nay;
Massachusetts, 6 yeas, 3 nays; Connecticut, 2 yeas, 2 nays; New York,
5 yeas, 2 nays; New Jersey, 3 yeas; Pennsylvania, 5 yeas; Virginia, 5
yeas, 6 nays; Maryland, 1 yea, 4 nays; Delaware, 1 yea.
[32] At this period, one hundred and fifteen American citizens,
captured by piracy, were held as slaves in Algiers, for whom large
ransoms were demanded by the pirates.
[33] The convention, after discussing principles, appointed a
"committee of detail," consisting of Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina,
Mr. Randolph of Virginia, Mr. Wilson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Ellsworth of
Connecticut, and Mr. Gorham of Massachusetts, to reduce to the form of
a constitution the resolutions agreed upon. This committee without
instructions, or authority from the resolutions adopted, introduced a
clause forever prohibiting the abolition of the African slave-trade.
Mr. Randolph earnestly protested against this clause. He was opposed
to any restriction on the power of Congress to abolish it. He "could
never agree to the clause as it stands. He would sooner risk the
Constitution." Madison Papers, p. 1396. Mr. Ellsworth "was for leaving
the clause as it now stands. Let every State import what it pleases.
The morality, the wisdom of slavery, are considerations belonging to
the States themselves. What enriches a part, enriches the whole; and
the States are the best judges of their particular interest." Id., p.
1389. It was moved, as a compromise, to guarantee the slave-trade for
twenty years, by postponing the restriction to 1808. This motion was
seconded by Mr. Gorham, of Massachusetts, and it passed. Mr. Madison,
of Virginia, opposed it. "Twenty years," he said, "will produce all
the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import
slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the American
character, than to say nothing about it in the Constitution." Id., p.
1427. Mr. Mason, of Virginia, pronounced the traffic as "infernal."
Id., p. 1390.
Public-domain text, read in full here on 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