Mr. Parker was evidently somewhat abashed by this onslaught of friend
and foe, but he "had ventured to introduce the subject after full
deliberation, and did not like to withdraw it." He desired Congress, "if
possible," to "wipe off the stigma under which America labored." This
brought Jackson of Georgia again to his feet. He believed, in spite of
the "fashion of the day," that the Negroes were better off as slaves
than as freedmen, and that, as the tax was partial, "it would be the
most odious tax Congress could impose." Such sentiments were a distinct
advance in pro-slavery doctrine, and called for a protest from Madison
of Virginia. He thought the discussion proper, denied the partiality of
the tax, and declared that, according to the spirit of the Constitution
and his own desire, it was to be hoped "that, by expressing a national
disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save ourselves from
reproaches, and our posterity the imbecility ever attendant on a country
filled with slaves." Finally, to Burke of South Carolina, who thought
"the gentlemen were contending for nothing," Madison sharply rejoined,
"If we contend for nothing, the gentlemen who are opposed to us do not
contend for a great deal."

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proposition should be withdrawn and a separate bill brought in.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 distin