"Second. To form Societies in every State, for the purpose of promoting the abolition of the slave-trade, of domestic slavery, for the relief of persons unlawfully held in bondage, and for the improvement of the condition of Africans and their descendants amongst us.
"The Societies which we represent, have beheld with triumph the success of their exertions in many instances, in favor of their African brethren; and, in full reliance upon the continuance of Divine support and direction, they humbly hope their labors will never cease while there exists a single slave in the United States."
[31] Mr. Jackson opposed the reference of the memorial to a committee, and wished it to be thrown aside. Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, said he saw the disposition of the House, and feared the memorial would be referred. He "was certain the commitment would sound an alarm, and blow the trumpet of sedition in the Southern States."
Mr. Seney, of Maryland, denied that there was anything unconstitutional in the memorial; its only object was that Congress should exercise their constitutional authority to abate the horrors of slavery as far as they could.
Mr. Parker, of Virginia, said: "I hope the petition of these respectable people will be attended to with all the readiness the importance of its object demands; and I cannot help expressing the pleasure I feel in finding so considerable a part of the community attending to matters of such momentous concern to the future prosperity and happiness of the people of America. I think it my duty as a citizen of the Union to espouse their cause."
Mr. Page, of Virginia (governor from 1802-1805), said he was in favor of the commitment. He hoped that the designs of the respectable memorialists would not be stopped at the threshold, in order to preclude a fair discussion of the prayer of the memorial. With respect to the alarm that was apprehended, he conjectured there was none; but there might be just cause, if the memorial was not taken into consideration. He placed himself in the case of a slave, and said that, on hearing that Congress had refused to listen to the decent suggestions of a respectable part of the community, he should infer that the general government (from which was expected great good would result to every class of citizens) had shut their ears against the voice of humanity; and he should despair of any alleviation of the miseries he and his posterity had in prospect. If anything could induce him to rebel, it must be a stroke like this. But if he was told that application was made in his behalf, and that Congress was willing to hear what could be urged in favor of discouraging the practice of importing his fellow-wretches, he would trust in their justice and humanity, and wait for the decision patiently. He presumed that these unfortunate people would reason in the same way.
Mr. Madison, of Virginia, said, if there were the slightest tendency by the commitment to break in upon the constitution, he would object to it; but he did not see upon what ground such an event could be apprehended. He admitted that Congress was restricted by the constitution from taking measures to abolish the slave-trade; yet there was a variety of ways by which it could countenance the abolition of slavery; and regulations might be made in relation to the introduction of slaves into the new States, to be formed out of the Western Territory.
The memorial was committed by a vote of 43 yeas to 14 nays. Of the Virginia delegation, 8 voted yea and 2 nay; Maryland, 3 yea, 1 nay; Delaware and North Carolina, both delegations absent. Mr. Vining, the member for Delaware, however, spoke and voted later with the friends of the memorialists.
The committee reported on the 8th of March. The report was discussed in committee of the whole, and amended to read as follows:
"First. That the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, can not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808.