Legislation: Compromise Bill of 1790 (Failed)

[Lumine]

Compromise Bill of 1790

Be it resolved:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the Sponsor:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[GoTfan]

Mr Speaker,

This is little more than an attempt to muzzle debate. We firmly reject this bill and no member of our faction will support it.

[wxtransit]

Mr. Speaker,

It is the position of the Republican faction that if this debate on slavery continues to rage through every corner of our nation, we shall see these United States become the opposite of United, and break apart with fiery hostilities. While there is still some debate to be had - we in the Republican faction do hold the position that while some of our more Northern members detest the practice and our more Southern members wholeheartedly support it, we both can agree that it is economically beneficial for the South for this practice to continue, and we should thusly not eradicate it in any manner - it is obvious we must let this nation heal after a blistering campaign before we enter a new war of words. For this reason, I implore the rest of my faction, as those in the Patriots and the Radicals also do, to vote for this compromise bill.

I yield the remainder of my time.

[GoTfan]

Mr Speaker,

Needless to say, we are alarmed at the government's willingness to trample any debate about this issue. Debate is part of a robust democracy, and clearly the government does not judge itself to be in a position that lends itself to along and at times rough debate.

I implore all those who stand for democracy in this chamber to oppose this bill.

[wxtransit]

Mr. Speaker,

Never did we in the government say that outside of these chambers men could not debate this topic, as that would be a most tyrannical and undemocratic assertion. Instead, all we ask for is a calming of tensions over this issue inside these chamber walls with a solution we believe that all parties can agree on.

I yield the remainder of my time.

[GoTfan]

Mr Speaker,

The government says it does not wish to trample the deabte. I ask the First Secretary directly, did he read the bill? It openly prevents the slave trade from being adressed in the Assembly for seventeen years! This is not democracy, Mr Speaker, this is indefensible!

Has it been so quickly forgotten what we fought the Revolution for? Because I have not! I was, and indeed still am, a soldier. I did not fight for a government to prevent an issue from being brought up in the halls of our democracy!

With this in mind, I propose an amendment. The 17 year ban on debate or further addressing the issue of slavery is to be abandoned.

[terp40hitch]

Mr. Speaker,

Slavery has divided our nation and exermist around the country and even within this chamber have tried to destroy the southern economy. This is why it is so important that this national assembly passes this bill. I am in full support of this bill and urge my fellow Patriots and other deputies to join with me in support of this bill.

To address the complaints from the leader of the opposition. Mr. Hamiltion, this isn't silencing debate. It is putting the debate where it belongs, in the state houses, not the national assembly. Slavery is a state issue, not a national issue and I appluad the Radical faction for realizing that too.

We must pass this bill to now to preserve unity in this nation and restore slavery as a state's debate, not a national debate.

I yield

[_]

Mr. Speaker,

I have come together with the Radical Gentleman from Pennsylvania on this legislation, in the interests of trying to unify this nation after the events of the past few months.  While the statements of some regarding the abolition of the institution of slavery have been wholly outlandish, they have only served to divide this nation and fracture it just after it's birth.  In the interests of holding this nation together and returning the debate over the slave trade to individual states, I came to this compromise.  In the interests of unity and returning the debate of the slave trade to individual states, I urge my fellow Patriots and Deputies to vote in favor of this legislation.

Before I conclude however, I wish to address the duplicitous and contradictory statements of the Gentleman from Suffolk & Queens.  Previously, the Gentleman has stated his support for "allowing the people to choose" in regards to the institution of slavery existing in their state.  However, he seems to fail to hold this view on the slave trade, which is merely an extension of the institution of slavery. Instead, he wishes for the ability to attempt an elimination of the slave trade, over any objections slave states may have, clearly a tyranny of one region over another.

The Gentleman must understand that Slavery, and all it's facets including the slave trade, is an issue that is best left to individual states, as there are too many differing opinions across the nation on this issue for it to be correctly addressed at the federal level.  However, it seems that despite objections from members of his own faction, he sadly wishes to continue attempting to force his opposition to the institution upon the slave states.

As such, I wish to extend an offer to Hamiltonians across the South, should you wish to be members of a faction that will leave issues that belong to the states in the states, such as slavery, and to have an actual impact upon the views of your faction, the Patriots welcome you with open arms, as we have welcomed all southerners willing to join us.

I yield.

[GoTfan]

Mr Speaker,

It is alarming at the amount of people in this chamber that wish to silence democratic debate. They speak of tyranny that we wish to impose, but we have never attempted to censor debate in such a tyrannical manner.

[wxtransit]

Mr. Speaker,

What is truly alarming here is how the honorable Deputy from Suffolk and Queens seems to completely disregard the fact that the issue of slavery is best debated in the state legislatures - not the federal ones - and we should for that reason stop the innecessant quarrels that will reach no end within these walls and send our debate to the more productive state legislatures. This is hardly undemocratic; in fact, it is it will of the people, especially within the south, to support the rights of their states to choose. This shall be summarized in a quip of four words: let the states decide.

I yield.

[Galaxie]

Mr. Speaker,

While I do value the importance of slavery being discussed and debated at the state level, need I remind this Congress of how harmful it would be to banish ourselves from even speaking of an issue for seventeen years?

Gentlemen, this issue may very well be a wedge in this great republic -- but ignoring it allows it to fester. How can we expect to address a crisis on this issue if it were to arise if we have muzzled ourselves on it in a self-righteous act of law?

I concur with delegates who speak of slavery being decided at the state level, but to prevent our federal government from discussing an issue at all is a disgrace to the democratic system -- the system that fosters debate, and the voices that contribute to it.

I stand in opposition to this act unless that clause is removed. For the sake of our nation.

I yield.

[GoTfan]

Mr Speaker,

I ask this: Are we one nation, or different states in a loose confederation? We all saw the folly of a weak government during the war. When I was starving at Valley Forge with the other men who decided that freedom was more important than their lives, the states decided not to support us.

"Let the states decide" is a wonderful refrain, but in practice, it means little when the government is attempting to censor any debate on the issue within the Assembly.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Mr. Speaker,

The question at hand, is whether the National Assembly may, in session, by act of ordinary legislation, remove a question as a subject of further debate for a period exceeding its tenure under the Constitution. I contend that it has not this power. As a matter of parliamentary procedure, the measure brought by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is highly irregular. As a matter of public policy, it had dangerous implications for the right of the people to petition their representatives for the redress of grievances.

It is the accepted convention of parliamentary procedure, that each sitting of the legislature have right (except where limited by the natural and inalienable rights of the people) to determine its own methods of proceeding. The measure brought by the gentleman from Pennsylvania would remove this right by denying to future sittings of this Assembly the ability to legislate or even to discuss a particular question. If the Assembly may make that prohibition with regard to slavery, what is to prevent it from making similar prohibitions with regard to other questions of federal power? Might not a corrupted or despotic legislature, the precedent being set, use their temporary majority to permanently bind this house to its own course, by prohibiting any future inquiry into its policies? We must beware, gentlemen, of setting half-hazard precedents which serve to degrade the liberty of our members or the integrity of our institutions. The right of the sitting session of the legislature to determine their rules and regulations is embedded in our ancient rights, and indeed in our federal Constitution, and must be carefully guarded at all hazards.

But more importantly still than the rights of legislators are the rights of those they are sworn to protect. It is the sacred, natural, and inalienable right of every citizen to petition this house for the redress of grievances. The Declaration of Rights for which you have all pledged to vote declares as much. If we are to bar all further discussion of slavery for a period of seventeen years, we also in effect remove the right of the people to have their petitions on that subject read in the house during that period. Will any man here claim that his right to be undisturbed by inconvenient or unfriendly petitions takes precedence over the right of the people to be heard in this house? Will they say the same, should a future session of this Assembly vote the reverse, and bar all petitions in support of slavery from being read on this floor?

On this question, I must raise my voice in rare agreement with the gentleman from Westchester. The resolution as proposed is unconstitutional and a flagrant attack on the right of petition. I therefore vote that the measure brought by the gentleman from Pennsylvania be defeated, and beg of my fellow Whigs to follow according to their conscience.

I yield my time to the chair.

[wxtransit]

Mr. Speaker,

I move to propose a compromise amendment to this bill. I propose, that instead of removing the topic of slavery from parliamentary debate, we instead move to not allow the federal Parliament to legislate on slavery after this bill is passed for a period of 17 years, but only state legislatures can legislate on this matter. This will allow members of the Parliament to still debate slavery within these walls, but it only allows the states to decide their fates, a most democratic option.

I yield.

[_]

Mr. Speaker,

After some reflection I wish to come out in support of the Gentleman from Charlottesville's Amendment, as I suppose it would be severely incorrect and unconstitutional to ban the discussion of the slave trade from Debate in this Assembly.  However, I do not believe it is unconstitutional to devolve an issue to the state level, as the legislation would still do under the Gentleman's amendment.  I urge all Patriots to support this amendment, in the interests of correcting an error on our part.

I yield.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Mr. Speaker,

Much as I may share the inclination of the gentleman from Augusta, to avoid at all costs the dissolution of our federal Union by a lengthy and acrimonious debate over the domestic institutions of the Southern States, I cannot agree that the bill even as amended is in compliance with the Constitution. This Assembly has no power to forbid passage of a particular resolution by any future sitting of this house save by Constitutional Amendment; the right of the legislative power to make laws for the general good, may not be restricted, save by the provisions of the Constitution.

Accordingly, I must reaffirm my previous vote against the measure brought by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, as amended by the gentleman from Charlottesville, and my recommendation to my fellow Whigs to follow according to their conscience.

I yield my time to the chair.

[Lumine]

Debate having been closed, the Speaker called for a vote on the Madison Amendment. With a high number of abstentions, the Amendment failed to recieve necessary support.

National Assembly Vote:

Moving into the final vote, the result was 30 in favor, 28 against, 6 abstaining.

Senate and President:

After a heated debate in the Senate the Compromise Bill of 1790 was defeated in the Senate by a 14 to 12 vote.