Of mine. He started interning with the First Federal congress project long time ago. He is not sensitive about his age. He is too young to be that it seems like it was a long time ago and we were able to see him take some of the things and develop it and work it into his phd dissertation, which is the basis for his first book. University of mississippi, now we are really, fortunate to have him come all the way up here from d. C. I want to thank the other people who made this a truly National Event with a scope that goes beyond this area code. We have a visitor from california and another wonderful friend from new york city. For some reason, im forgetting your name john. Who represents the harvard conservancy. A real destination in Lower Manhattan for a study of the early congresses. Welcome to everybody, whether you came from near or far. [applause] paul thank you for that introduction. I would like to thank the u. S. Capital Historical Society were for inviting me here today for my talk today entitled Congress First debate on slavery and race is going to attempt to demonstrate the central ways this First National congressional debate set the tone for these larger issues of slavery and race as they would play out over seven decades , stretching all the way to the outbreak of the civil war. The subject focused on the debate as it unfolded in 1790. In the early months of 1790, the house of representatives was consumed by the issue of slavery. Asking the First Federal congress to take antislavery measures, this debate grips the lower house of the legislator for days. Historians have interpreted this early episode in a long history of legislative grappling with slavery in various ways. Some appointed pointed to the role of these debates as establishing the infamous gag rule which would silence future , additions to slavery to congress. Others have highlighted the congressional resolutions resulting from the debates, arguing they would close substantive action on the sector federal level and represent a lost opportunity for legislating against slavery in early america. Still others have downplayed the supposedly victories of slaverys defenders, insisting instead that debates concluded with an antislavery victory, namely the assertion that congress could let relate regulate the slave trade. Yet what all of these applications share is an implicit assumption that a hold restriction over slavery in the slave trade. When i will argue today is at the heart of this debate is a struggle or not just by merely over constitutional, but rather that constitutional or congressional provisions, rather over fundamental principles. Oneon one side those who highlighted human over Property Rights and imagine 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 activist, and especially the Pennsylvania Abolition Society put forth a vision of a new nation that imagined a racially inclusive public where the basic rights of republic where the basic rights of enslaved africans were respected. Opposite the petitioners, a congressman from the lower south, here, im referring to georgia and South Carolina, these men answered the antislavery rhetoric of the petitioners by undermining the underlining the sanctity of Property Rights and depicting slaves as inferior to their white counterparts, unfit for the liberty the petitioners argued was a natural right of all. Thus, Congress First debate over slavery exposed a wrist of slavery in a place of human bondage in the american nation. A rift over principles that would shape the contours of the nations growing division regarding the peculiar institution for generations to come. After a hardfought battle to ratify the constitution, the First Federal congress convened in new york of april of 1779. If the constitution gave a blueprint for federal governance, the First Congress was left to interpret it design and set precedents in national lawmaking. I have here an illustration of federal hall, where the First Congress met during its first two sessions before moving in december to philadelphia where it would stay for a decade. That would eventually come to what would be washington dc. Federal hall is located in Lower Manhattan in what is now the financial district. Such issues as creating a financial system, funding the revolutionary war debt and locating a permanent of permanent seat of government were some of the most important subject tackled by the nations First Congress. One topic, however the congress , did not expect to address was slavery. The federal convention of 1787 resulted in a concert to show constitution that gave no indisputable victory to proor antislavery interest. As with many subjects standing in the way of creating a stronger union, the federal constitution retained enough ambiguity 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, either embracing or rejecting principles hostile to slavery. On february 11, 7090, 1 month into this concession of the first 1790, 1 month into the session of the First Congress, representative Thomas Fitzsimmons and John Lawrence presented antislave trade petitions from their quaker yearly meetings. Quakers were the leading religious Group Opposed to slavery during this time. These petitions argued the slave trade violated the sanctity of the social compact and all those he based and dehumanized who took part in it. Trafficking of our fellow men, one of our petitioners read was read, was in human tear any, and destructive to the virtues and happiness of the people. In asking the First Congress to turn their attention to a case so interesting to the rights of men, the petitioners wanted the house to exert full extent of their power in discouraging the abominable commerce that was the slave trade. If the petitions of february 11 sent tremors through the house, when a third antislavery petition, this time from the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, reached of the floor reached the floor the following day, it would register as a massive earthquake. Whereas the previous petitions called for congress to examine its powers regarding the slave trade, the pennsylvania abolition societies position address the house in much broader and much more threatening abolitionist terms. I have here an image of the petition as it was submitted to congress. Now, it is worth quoting from this petition at link gth to capture the scope of this attack on human bondage, so i will quote at length from the petition. From the regard of the happiness of mankind, and association was warmed several years ago in the state. They are referring to the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. A just and accurate consumption of the two principles of the as they spread through the land produces many friends in the legislative cooperation of their views, which have been successfully directed to the removing of their botches a number of fellow preach and removing their bondage a number black humans. Similar institutions are gradually forming, both at home and abroad. That mankind are all formed by the same almighty being, the object of his care and equally designed for the enjoyment of happiness, the christian religion teaches us to believe and the political creed of america fully fortifies this position. Us memorial has observed with great satisfaction that many hours are vested in you. Quoting the constitution securing the blessings of , liberty to the people of the united states. As they concede these ought to be administered without distinction of color to all descriptions of people, so they indulge themselves the pleasing expectation that nothing which can be done for the relief of the unhappy object of their care would be there either would be either omitted or delayed. From a persuasion that equal liberty is the birthright of all men and influenced by the strong tides of humanity and the principles of their institution, ts is can useis all justifiable endeavors to loosen the bounds of slavery and promote a general enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. You will be pleased to countenance the registration of liberty to those unhappy men for , those in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage. That you will devise me for removing this inconsistency from the character of the american people. That you will most mercy and promote mercy and justice toward this distressed race and step to the verge of the powers vested in you for discouraging every species of traffic in our fellow man. Petition would have been read out loud just like that. In fact, it was red by the read by the speaker of the house, so you have to imagine other congressman receiving this. We will sort of understand their response. While the petition technically here asked the house to apply jurisdictional powers over the slave trade specifically, its its aims, and you have all heard now were much more , encompassing. The Pennsylvania Abolition Society led the Antislavery Movement in its state. Pennsylvania passed the gradual emancipation law in 1780 and society was now working to incorporate former slaves into the republic as citizens. Calling for the application of its pretzels to the nation at its principles to the nation at large the abolition , society rejected confidence that the course of history was on its side. It is referencing there are societies forming at home and internationally. Theres a real sense of confidence in this petition. The petition argued people of african descent were entitled to an equal liberty with their free white counterparts. Humanityng the equal as slaves rather than their status as property they urged , congress to approach the topic of slavery in this light. Moreover, the petition link to the founding principles of the nation what it called the , political creed of america with the cause of slaverys , abolition. To clinch this point, we Pennsylvania Abolition Society had its president and a leading figure of American National identity sign the document. You can see in the bottom right corner, for those of you who dont spend your days reading 18thcentury handwriting, take my word for that is indeed Benjamin Franklins signature. He was the president of the society his and the president of the society. This edition asked the house not only to assert immediate powers over regulating the slave trade, but also to ratify a larger vision of the republic as a land of genuine liberty. The rights of humanity and enslaved blacks were acknowledged. Here, i want to show you the seal of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which i think neatly encapsulates the ideas of the society. You can see here a slave, having broken his chains, standing up, and a white slavery activist has taken his hand. They are standing sidebyside. 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 its larger vision. Whereas lower Southern Congressmen, who we will hear more from coming up representatives from new england endorsed what they saw as the moral and humanistic foresight of the petitioners. In answering a lower southern wasressmens question, it said one man would not have property in the person of another. He offered that if he were a federal judge and slaves asked him for freedom, i am sure i would go as far as i could in emancipating them. Others seconded the sentence, and recommended that the petitions be referred to a committee. After two days of debate, the house voted to commit the petitions to a special committee for consideration. The select committee charged with drafting a report on the antislavery petitions completed their work on march 1 and submitted to the house the product of their deliberation four days later. The first cause of the report reiterated the federal constitutions pledge to refrain from interfering with the slave trade the second said that 41808. Congress emancipation within the period mentioned it this , 1808. Ioned this section of the report was interpreted by William Lawton smith of South Carolina as leaving open the possibility that after 1808, congress could only ban the slave trade but regulate and perhaps and the slavery end altogether. The third permission granted that only the individual states could make laws relating to the and toss of the slaves, promote the happiness of the slave. Recognized thes ability to regulate the foreign slave trade, and the seven claws endorsed the antislavery intentions of the petitioners. Informing the petitioners that in all cases where congress could advance humane objects based on justice, humanity and good policy, they would do so. To the lower southerners who had opposed considering the petition altogether and wanted to table them and silence them, any report was bound to disappoint. Especially disturbing was a second clause that could be read to opening the door to federally sectioned emancipation, even though every congressman who spoke in the debates would deny the right of the federal government to abolish slavery on the state level. Additionally, the final clause implied solidarity with the andtioners perspective supported their code of ethics. The lower southerners succeeded temporarily in tabling the report, but the house agreed to take up the report on march 16. To fully grasp why the lower southerners would offer an elaborate justification for slavery, it is important meet that we first acknowledge the defensive position these congressmen found themselves in. In 1790, it was far from certain whether slavery would survive in the new republic. 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 and pennsylvania had either ended slavery judicially or put them on the path to emancipation laws. Their neighbors would also do so with the passage of gradual abolition acts. In virginia and maryland, the declining viability of the tobacco economy had led to the spring of slaves voluntarily, and lifted restrictions on the slaveholders ability to limit their travel. As they took of the antislavery petitions, only South Carolina and georgia appeared unequivocally committed to the longterm presence of slavery in independent america. Furthermore, there is no what we would call solid south political alignment, completely or unabashedly committed to favoring the institution of slavery at this time. Revealingly, virginia was often lumped together by National Politicians with new york and pennsylvania. A mix of the rhetorical championing of the ideas of liberty and equality by some of virginias leading political figures and the state economic States Economic self interest, virginia had an excess of slaves they stood to gain , economically from any congressional action taken against the slave trade. All of this meant that lower southerners could not count on their northern neighbors for ideological support taking into ideological support for slavery. Taking into account these factors, lower southern members of the house mustve been alarmed by the Abolition Society petition that was read before the house. 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, cumbersome and from congressmen from South Carolina and georgia would feel compelled to combat the principles of the antislavery petitioners with what they viewed as a principal defense of slavery. Slaverys proponents relied on a bevy of arguments in defending bondage. Repeatedly, lower southerners attacked the quakers as misguided and subversive. The decision of many quakers to remain neutral during the revolutionary war showed them to be cowardly traitors, posing as Conscientious Objectors while britishiots fought the and brought into question the quakers loyalty to the american republic. Southerners attacked these members of a marginalized religious sect rather than the universal one intimately connected with the meaning of american independence. On its own sullying the , character of the quakers left the content of the petitions on unanswered. Slavery defenders also turned to history but revered sources in , making their case. Both the greek and roman empires, two influential models for america, use slaves. The lower southerners insisted civilizations before had been built upon bondage. Historical precedents of this kind carry little weight. In a country already celebrating itself by its exceptional nature, endorsement from the past ring hollow. Slaverys defenders scoured the bible for passengers that passages that condoned slavery and recited to their colleagues those excerpts the interpreted as doing just that. But turning to the bible was a mixed blessing for slavery defenders. Antislavery activists could harness the christian precepts of altruism, benevolence in answering slaverys advocates. The inconclusive effect of these strategies in defending slavery left lower southerners to tap economic utility, political compromise, copyrights that poverty rights Property Rights, and race. Only people of economic the senate could work in the tropical environment of the best people of african descent people of african descent could work in the tropical environment of the south, lacked a rationale 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 Property Rights with racial inferiority and allegations of black incapacity for freedom. However, a man from South Carolina initiated the second round of debates on slavery when he offered a motion to substitute the entirety of the report with that congress could not take said memorial into their consideration, as being unconstitutional and tending to injure some of the states of the union. James jackson of georgia, by hisd as hi colleagues as they can take a risk corridor, cantankerous orator, seconded the motion and spoke for over one hour. Attesting to the sanctity of Property Rights, jackson asked his colleagues at the rights of liberty are not adequate to the rights of person. And if entering into the constitution, the meaning of it was not to secure the citizens in position of one as well as the other. In other words, Property Rights were indistinguishable from natural rights. Jackson 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 weight out his version of the nature of enslaved africans and African Americans. The west african countries from which american slaves originated followed a despotic and tyrannical social model, in which a king had absolute authority over those in his dominion, according to jackson. Thus, africans were habituated from their earlier experiences from what jackson considered. Arbaric africa to further augment his justification for slavery, jackson turned to the prospect of emancipation. If the slaves were freed, what next . Jackson pointed out that Thomas Jefferson kurt already examined the question of slaverys abolition and concluded that should slaves be liberated within greater American Society prejudice heldd by the whites, longheld animosity by the blacks, and the real distinction nature has made would result in a race war. Jackson concurred with jefferson that unavoidable racial polarization precluded any prospect of an america where whites and blacks could then live side by side. Moreover, jackson added there was a great distinction between the subjects of liberty. Holding up the example of maryland where the ongoing manumission of slaves had resulted in a growing free black population, jackson said those liberated had resorted to stealing rather than working. I quote again, the sound of liberty when applied to slavery has this consequence for jackson, any effort to free a people whose natural disposition predisposed them to slavery was not only a waste of time and resources but also flew in the face of natures intended design for africans unconditional bondage. Members of the house present voted down tuckers proposed amendment to the report, so the report continued to be debated and considered. , theg the next days debate lawyers representing South Carolina joined jackson and aggressively defending slavery. Both echoed jacksons the fiction of slaves as culturally and inherently inferior and naturally fit for bondage. By advocating emancipation, the doingoners were actually an act of inhumanity to the slaves, as burke saw it. America witness how unfit people of african descent were for freedom during emancipation. At that time, the british army conferred liberty to thousands work erroneously claimed, most of these former , therebyed en masse demonstrating how totally incapable he or a slave is of making proper use of his new games liberty. Seeking to filibuster the report , in the process, smith intended is not that slavery dark think detested by many americans. Here is william locksmith. Like jackson before him, smith used the hypothetical of slaverys abolition to strengthen his justification and he, too, turned to Thomas Jefferson. Should the nation eradicate slavery and admit lack people into what society, it would permanently alter the countrys character for the worse and quote stating the blood of the whites. The potential for a race war manifested in equally horrendous prospect as that of racial intermixture according to smith. The inherent incompatibility would lead to a bloody battle the Strongest Party left to murder the weaker. In smiths estimation, externally imposed black freedom could never hold up in the face of natures plan for those of african descent. Africans and African Americans were an indolent people. Improvident, averse to labor. When emancipated, they would either starve or plunder. They would either start or plunder. Even if emancipation was enacted throughout the country, smith said the two races would remain distinct. While the petitioners argued that nature had made all men equal, and here i am quoting jackson quoting his interpretation of the petitioners, nature had made all men equal and the difference of color should not place negroes on a worse footing in society. These ideals would wither in harsh reality of what prejudices, labeling the petitioners as hypocrites, he declared that even the warmest friends of blacks kept them at a distance. He felt this was an inescapable social reality. Two of the antislavery petitioners most vocal proponents put forth intense ideological opposition to human bondage, but did so in ways that at first glance seemed unthreatening to the institution of slavery. Two men from louisiana and delaware adopted a way of speaking about slavery that made it holy out of place in the united states, even if vacancy to the federal government was powerless to end slavery. Here is an illustration of one of them. He was an important defender of the petitioners. He declared slavery incompatible with americas founding principles. The lower southerners, he lectured, could no more legitimate bondage in the british could convince the former colonists that their tyrannical english law was just. Furthermore, the declaration of independence laid out to the war that justice and freedom with the Building Blocks of the republic. Here he read the declaration, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain alienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those words, he concluded, served as the language of america. He roundly rejected the efforts of jackson and smith to harmonize flavoring with the new nation. At the same time, he reassured the lower southerners that he recognized their right to hold people in chains. For him, there was a wide difference between justifying slavery and the slave trade and acknowledging a claim to property in the form of bonds person. What he failed to understand was that to the lower southerners, without justifying slavery, the property claim was not sufficiently secure. John vining was another house number who spoke in favor of the petitioners. Vining offered a ringing condemnation of slavery in at the same time confessed that this condemnation was inapplicable to the subject at hand. An excerpt from one of his speeches, which i will read, captures this rhetoric at work. Ewing the question as it regards general principles, i hold it to be an immutable truth that all men are created equal, and freedom is an inalienable right, and a state in which a man exists merely for the use of another is unnatural. A power to the exercise by what human being over another is a dangerous and unnatural power. But as these are general principles, i shall forbear at the lease commentary upon them. So they seemed to be telling the lower southerners, we tolerate your right to property person but we do not support the principle of enslaving these persons. This kind of talk hardly constituted a secure promise to slavers. To these representatives, the antislavery thrust of American Revolutionary thought was unconnected to the house today. To the lower southerners, this rhetoric was not an abstract or theoretical threat. The antislavery petitions turned the general principle they referenced into a tangible specter threatening to tear apart the fabric of slaveholding sun life. In turn, lower southern covers the so compelled to defend slavery as a normal state for people they rendered an inferior race come incapable of living as free citizens. There emerged one house member that joined philosophical support for the petitioners with the willingness to entertain the possibility of fraud federal powers over the issue of slavery. Unfortunately, the one congressman in this debate, there is no portrait. We will have to imagine him. Thomas scott of pennsylvania, the most strident defender of the index slavery petition, broke out for the first time in over a month. He listed hypothetical scenarios to illustrate his expansive view of the implied Powers Congress held over the slave trade, premised on the general welfare clause of the constitution, which we heard referenced in the petition. Scott technologist that congress was explicitly prohibited and stopping the importation of slaves for at least 20 years. But, what if congress determined that the person imported by the states possessed inadmissible qualities such as the plague, could not congress in stop the admission of such people . What if the state tried to import alien enemies . Would congress not be empowered to intervene and stop calamity from taking place . Scott had watched as the representatives from South Carolina and georgia insisted that the wretched africans were property and not people. Could not the federal government under regulating trade and commerce, put a stop to the slave trade . Congress had recently passed the naturalization act, giving the race of citizenship to immigrants who were free white people only. As the role of centralization was an arbitrary rule, scott reminded the house that future congresses could whenever they please, rewrite the law and the clear that every person, blacks, white, blue or red, be not only free persons but free citizens. His reading of the constitution empowered federal government to end the slave trade and import africans as citizens, thereby in the the differentiation. This example fight the stuff of nightmares for lower Southern Congress and feared Southern Congressman. As a president of an Abolitionist Society of pennsylvania, scotts work in cap sold encapsulated a vision that had caused slaverys defenders to counter that slavery was the only appropriate state for African Americans and it was fully compatible with the new nation. For James Jackson, scotts comments only confirm what he had known all along. The antislavery petitions represented a complete assault on the institution of slavery. Therefore, while many members accused the lower southerners of undue trepidation in their fiery reactions to the petitions and support, for jackson it was the reality, not the bugbear we have raised. Jackson spoke for the lower southern contingent when he raised concern that the digitals embodied in the petition 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 fear that once the doors open, their property is not secure, and if Congress Wants opened the store, i contend there was no bound at which they could stop it. In the end, neither the petitioners nor the lower southerners could claim total victory. Following three days of debate on individual clauses, on march 23, 1790, the house came to an agreement. Under James Madisons motion, the house voted to substitute the word until with prior to in the first clause. This came intact left intact the rest. It read that the migration or importation of such persons cannot be prohibited by Congress Prior to the year 1808. This was in response to lower southern concerns that the reports original language of until assumed the slave trade would be abolished in 1808, when in fact, congress was not obligated at all. The revised resolutions relating to slavery also favored the lower southerners. On a motion by medicine the , second and third causes were struck out. A new resolution accorded exclusive jurisdiction for slavery to the individual states of the union. It read, let congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves or treatment of them within any of the states, it remaining with the several states alone to provide regulations therein which humanity and true holocene may require. As is indicated in madisons role, the protestations of the trojans and south carolinians had forced virginia and 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 those in the lower south have asserted that the power to emancipate slaves lay with the federal government. This revised clause only restated what nearly every National Politician believed. Additionally, while william juan smith proposed removing the word humanity, his motion did not pass. Smith fought unsuccessfully to read the report of any words that echoed petitioners like richard in other ways, the lower southerners did not get what they hoped for. First, they didnt want covers to consider the petition. Is a tried and failed to substitute the original report with the statement that congress should once again refused to consider the petition. Then, a majority of georges into South Carolinas representatives unsuccessfully opposed to the unprecedented step of having a final report recorded in the health journal, believing that doing so would give voice to a topic they wished to silence altogether and act as a president for future if i slavery agitators. Most unsatisfying way from the perspective of those such as James Jackson and smith, despite the southerners long monologues, not one congressman outside of georgia or South Carolina acquiesced in pronouncing human bondage of just institution. In fact, several representatives expressed shock that any dignified statement could dare to argue for the moral legitimacy of human bondage, and it is in this way the petitioners triumphed in the battle of slavery principles, broadcasting on a National Level. The underlying ideas antithetical to slavery survived the debate intact, and explains why the Vice President of the sylvania Abolitionist Society could conclude that the whole episode had served to disseminate or principles and led to a more general assent. This in turn showed that the time was not very distant when these principles would be universally received and firmly established. To conclude, putting aside trying to identify the winners and losers in his First Congressional tussle over slavery, the ultimate legacy of the debate was a pivotal way in which it set the terms for future National Battles over the peculiar institution it is play in the american institution. From lincolns commitment for the essential rights of slaves to alexander stephensons assertion that the confederate nation was confounded excuse me, was founded on a belief of inherent black and 4080 like inferiority, the debate first emerged at the inaugural meeting of congress. Thank you. [applause] any questions . What was at stake here . The petition was not a bill that could have accomplished anything. Prof. Polgar these were resolutions. 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 cannot be ended 41808, but it gives powers of congress to regulate the slave trade, the foreign slave trade could be regulated, and in fact there was a bill passed a few years later regulating the foreign slave trade. Attacks could be applied to foreign slave spirit there was that reality. My argument is this was really about laying out the principles and the debate. Yet remember, the Constitutional Convention steered clear of a lot of these principal arguments. It gave no clear victory to probe or if i slavery interests. Taking a lot of interest to proslavery interest, but no absolute guarantee and the absolut saturday of Property Rights and slaves. So when the First Congress meets, there is this debate going on based on which principles would win out, and i or anti or proslavery. But they were a measure of how when congress was interpreting how the constitution could be applied to the institution of slavery. Why did Congress Even have to consider these petitions . Someone submits a petition to congress, what could they not just ignore . Prof. Polgar they could. Chuck who introduced me has written on this very fact, showing how the antislavery petitioners played an essential role in sort of establishing that petitions to congress could be about moral issues. Up to this point, the second session of the First Congress have been based on individual claims. Revolutionary war soldiers trying to collect pensions and other things like that. Will this was a larger, huge issue. The quakers, in getting their petitions heard in getting any resolutions and a debate innocence, established that the federal government could take up moral issues. In the federal government would do that through the early years of the republic, through because kinds of issues, temperance, the womens movement, further antislavery, all the way up to today with issues like questions of abortion rights. This was a Pivotal Moment in that way, as well. Thank you very much. It was very illuminating. I am here from my book club. At the moment, we are reading the new book, and i slavery racist ideas. Prof. Polgar i have it, as well. It is quite a read. You talk about the northern slaves having abolished slavery in their jurisdiction. That assumes there was slavery in the north. Prof. Polgar there absolutely was. Why did they become truer to the american idea first . Was it Just Economics that made them say slavery was not worth it . Prof. Polgar certainly, the quick and easy answer is to say it is all dependent on what the proportion of slaveholders are in any given society. There are many more slaveholders who hold more power to lyrically, economically and socially in states like georgia and South Carolina been in pennsylvania than in pennsylvania and new york. That is the easiest answer. However, we have to remember that just getting emancipation passed in states like pennsylvania and especially new york and new jersey were long, he did battles, where in a lot of this rhetoric and back and forth between those opposed to slavery and those for it laid out. It was not easy to abolish anywhere in the american republic. It was a very difficult battle where everyone turned. But the sylvania Abolitionist Society is totally locked in to this battle. They are sort of taking their experience in ideals and principles as they formed them over the course of already a number of years in fighting against slavery and infighting to bring those principles and ideas to the National Level. But yes, slavery is difficult to abolish everywhere in the united states. Yes . Benjamin fragments role franklins role. Would it have been given as much attention if Benjamin Franklin had not been the president of the society . Prof. Polgar interesting question. There are two petitions from quaker yearly meetings that were also predicted also presented. These meetings have nothing to do with franklin. He did not sign the petition. On the one hand, you could say his role was not necessary for them to be heard. However, his signature on that document acts to sort of signal the congress that these principles of the pennsylvania absolution Pennsylvania Society has greater relevance. That is the role he played. That was a very important one in this attempt to sort of project Larger National congruence with the pennsylvania Abolitionist Society. James jackson accused franklin of being senile in the debates. He said this is the only way franklin couldve possibly signed this petition. Franklin got his revenge. He wrote a satire in a local newspaper imagining in algerian politician defending the slavery of christians 100 years before. Of course, franklin was a master of satire, and showing he responded directly to jackson, showing he still had his full faculties. This was really the last act of Benjamin Franklin, because he died only weeks after writing this editorial. Yes . What kind of discussion or debate was happening in europe at this time . Today informed the american debate . Prof. Polgar when i read the petition at length, the Abolitionist Society are pointing out that there are abolitionist societies that have emerged throughout the larger atlantic world, what we call europe. The London Society has emerged in this period, and it is closely corresponding with the Pennsylvania Society. There is a society in paris, which has also emerged in his corresponding. One of its leading advocates make the trip to philadelphia and new york to correspond in meat and create a joint effort between these societies. It is an important point your member that in fact this debate in if i slavery activities involving the institution of slavery were unfolding in a much broader landscape beyond the united states. The Pennsylvania 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 it is on the defensive and will be on the defensive as the haitian revolution emerges, which has really is about to begin a year after this debate. This was absolutely part of the broader global discussion. Thank you so much for the information. I appreciate your research. Every time a hear about slavery, you learn something new. One of the things i really hear about is in addition to the moral, physical and mental degradation of the human being of color was the sexual abuses, as well. That seems to get pushed to the back of the story. By the way, there were x number of rapes, adultery, incestuous. Here we have children born that were never recognized, shall i say . In counted as members of society and counted as members of society. That is huge, and left at the bottom. I wish it would come up further. Prof. Polgar yes, and i certainly dont mean to imply not you. [laughter] prof. Polgar but i totally agree with you. This in fact was a factor that abolitionist were beginning to point to and would especially pointed by the 1830s, when slavery is interpreted by white northerners as being officially sense of especially offensive at the way it works up families, promotes sexual abuse. Those arguments are just really beginning, they are in their infant stages during this period. 1830s, this is a key argument abolitionists are making, the way it degrades and dehumanizes sexually, right, slate women slave women, and at to the slave population. There is an economic interest in masters sexually violating slaves. It became a very important factor. Wasnt one of the in results of this debate is that Congress Said they would not consider petitions on slavery anymore . Prof. Polgar yes. I alluded to this in the opening. Some historians have argued this was a prelude to the gag rule, it fully emerges later in the 1830s and you have a flood of petitions coming to congress. There is no absolute answer that. In a lot of ways, yes, it is setting a precedent that is saying, antislavery petitions are not going to be handled in exactly this way to compute it is true that exactly in this way to come. It is true that if you after this, they table the discussions. They adopted this strategy. A lot of ways, slavery on the National Level is not going to burst out in this way continuously. But i want to make clear that the slavery issue is not silence on the National Level at all. 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 complete we silenced at the National Level. Even if, right, the petitions are gapped in a certain way in the years following gagged in a certain way in the years following. [indiscernible] inspired people to look at this debate more in honest dimensions. There are plenty of dimensions to look at. One thing i would remind you, if you study this episode, the wider atlantic world, there is a lot going on in congress at this time. Nothing is debated in congress in a vacuum. In this particular case, for those of you who have seen hamilton, and you know his report on public credit is being debated at the same time. Tensions in congress are already amped up. You get these quakers and senile ben franklin throwing these potentially unconstitutional proposals, and things really start to ignite. Bear that in mind. I am reminded, unless i am wrong in this, there are good in bad good and bad sides to the it antislavery debate being dragged out. Some people say this is a titanic waste of time. Then we have simmons of pennsylvania saying lets drag it out more because we have some colleagues who are not here yet to weigh in on a proposal on hamiltons system. You are a lot of things going on that make history exciting. Thank you for sharing some of that. [applause] interested in American History tv . Visit our website, cspan. Org history. You can view our tv schedule, preview of coming programs, watch college lectures, museum tours, archival films, and more. American history tv at cspan. Org history. American history tv was at the annual meeting of historians in new orleans, and we spoke to the historian about what life was like for newspaper boys in the cities and the railroads at the turn of the 20th century. This interview was about 10 minutes. You have a forthcoming book titled, crying the news a history of americas newsboys. Who were the newsboys . They were the children of the poor, to put it very simply. Which meant they were immigrants