It now became clear that Congress had been whirled into a discussion of too delicate and lengthy a nature to allow its further prolongation.  Compromising councils prevailed; and it was agreed that the present proposition should be withdrawn and a separate bill brought in.  This bill was, however, at the next session dexterously postponed “until the next session of Congress."[20]

45. Second Debate in Congress, 1790. It is doubtful if Congress of its own initiative would soon have resurrected the matter, had not a new anti-slavery weapon appeared in the shape of urgent petitions from abolition societies.  The first petition, presented February 11, 1790,[21] was from the same interstate Yearly Meeting of Friends which had formerly petitioned the Confederation Congress.[22] They urged Congress to inquire “whether, notwithstanding such seeming impediments, it be not in reality within your power to exercise justice and mercy, which, if adhered to, we cannot doubt, must produce the abolition of the slave trade,” etc.  Another Quaker petition from New York was also presented,[23] and both were about to be referred, when Smith of South Carolina objected, and precipitated a sharp debate.[24] This debate had a distinctly different tone from that of the preceding one, and represents another step in pro-slavery doctrine.  The key-note of these utterances was struck by Stone of Maryland, who “feared that if Congress took any measures indicative of an intention to interfere with the kind of property alluded to, it would sink it in value very considerably, and might be injurious to a great number of the citizens, particularly in the Southern States.  He thought the subject was of general concern, and that the petitioners had no more right to interfere with it than any other members of the community.  It was an unfortunate circumstance, that it was the disposition of religious sects to imagine they understood the rights of human nature better than all the world besides.”

In vain did men like Madison disclaim all thought of unconstitutional “interference,” and express only a desire to see “If anything is within the Federal authority to restrain such violation of the rights of nations and of mankind, as is supposed to be practised in some parts of the United States.”  A storm of disapproval from Southern members met such sentiments.  “The rights of the Southern States ought not to be threatened,” said Burke of South Carolina.  “Any extraordinary attention of Congress to this petition,” averred Jackson of Georgia, would put slave property “in jeopardy,” and “evince to the people a disposition towards a total emancipation.”  Smith and Tucker of South Carolina declared that the request asked for “unconstitutional” measures.  Gerry of Massachusetts, Hartley of Pennsylvania, and Lawrence of New York rather mildly defended the petitioners; but after considerable further debate the matter was laid on the table.