** American history Constitutional Convention 1787








United States Constitutional Convention: Slavery


Figure 1.--

The Constitutioal Convention was not called to debate slavery. It was called to address the fact that the Articke of Confederation were not working. And the problemns that surfaced after indeopedence were the primary ones addressed. The issue of slavery, however. was impossdible to ignore. Not only were there moral issues, but important political and economic issues on which slavery impinged. Now the Abolitiomist Movement existed, but was not yet a powerful force. But the northern states had begun to abolish slavery--only bdegun it must be stressed. But there were men at the Convention who thought slavery an evil system and should be abolished. Few were, however, willing tp press the ussue to the point of having the Southern delegates walk out. The major conytroversy at the Convention was represenation--essentially political power. The larger states wanted more influence. The smaller states did not want to lose all influence. So the most important compromise at the Convention was creating two legislative houses. Which was not a difficult step at the British Parliament had two houses. In the Senate each state would have two seats. In the House of Representatives the larger states would have more inflience. This meant that a new system based on population with propotional representation had to be settled. But just who was going to be counted? This inevitably led directly to the issue of slavery. The Southern delegates where the great bulk of the slaves were located wanted them counted, most Northrern delegates did not. The failed land value system of the Articles of Confederation for taxatiion had to be discontinued. So the issue of a new taxation system had to be created and here again slavery also became a factor. Representation was the major issue to be solved, but there were many others, three of which concerned slvery. First, Southern delegates wanted slavery enshrined in the Constitution s ikt was in the constitutions of the southern states. Second, the Southern states also wantged a fugitive slave clause. Third, the evils of slavery werte well known at the time. So there was condsoderable support for ablolosjingb the slave trade. Eleven states had already abloshed the salve trade including several southern states. This is notable because Southern questions over over slavery was more pronounced at the time than it would be later. There was widespread belief that slavery was a dying ststem which would iltimately disappear as was already happening in the North. Once the representation issue was decided at the Convention was quickly decided to use the same representatiion formula to determine taxation. Thus slavery fit into the nexus of both political and economic power in the new American Republic.

Purpose

The Constitutioal Convention was not called to debate slavery. It was called to address the fact that the Articke of Confederation were not working. And the problemns that surfaced after indepedence were the primary ones addressed.

Slavery Impossible to Ignore

Slavery eas basically ignired in ghe Cintinental Congresses and during the Articles of Confederation period. The issue of slavery, however. was impossdible to ignore at the Cinstitutiional Convention. Not only were there groe]win awarness of moral issues, but there were important political and economic issues on which slavery impinged. And these were impossible to evade. Now the Abolitiomist Movement existed, but was not yet a powerful force. But the northern states had begun to abolish slavery--only bdegun it must be stressed. But there were men at the Convention who thought slavery an evil system and should be abolished. Few were, however, willing tp press the ussue to the point of having the Southern delegates walk out. The major controversy at the Convention was represenation--essentially political power. This was the central question to be dermined. The larger states wanted more influence.The larger states wanted more influence. The smaller states did not want to lose all influence. So the most important compromise at the Convention was creating two legislative houses. Which was not a difficult step at the British Parliament had two houses. In the Senate each state would have two seats. In the House of Representatives the larger states would have more inflience. This meant that a new system based on population with propotional representation had to be settled. But just who was going to be counted? This inevitably led directly to the issue of slavery. The Southern delegates where the great bulk of the slaves were located wanted them counted, most Northrern delegates did not. The failed land value system of the Articles of Confederation for taxatiion had to be discontinued. So the issue of a new taxation system had to be created and here again slavery also became a factor. Representation was the major issue to be solved, but there were many others, three of which concerned slvery. First, Southern delegates wanted slavery enshrined in the Constitution s ikt was in the constitutions of the southern states. Second, the Southern states also wantged a fugitive slave clause. Third, the evils of the slaved trade were well known at the time. So there was condsiderable support for ablolishing the slave trade. Eleven states had already abloshed the salve trade including several southern states. This is notable because Southern questions about slavery were more pronounced at the time than it would be later. There was widespread belief that slavery was a dying ststem which would iltimately disappear as was already happening in the North. Once the representation issue was decided, it was quickly decided to use the same representatiion formula to determine taxation. Thus slavery fit into the nexus of both political and economic power in the new American Republic.

Terminology

The word 'slave' does not appear in the document crafted by the delegates in Philadelphia. The delegates consciously avoided the word. They understood that it would sully a document ensrining human dignity and the rights of man.

Practicality

Norhern delegates were from states which were in the process of abolioshing slavery, realized that efforts at abolition would make agreement on a final document impossible. And Southern delegates were aware that they were noygoinjg to be able to get a slavery clause inbedded ito the Constitution and thery like the Northern delegates wanted a Federal Union. So there were thus compromises that had to be made. This compromise was possible by simoly leaving the issue of slavery up to the states. Stale laws etablishing slavery were not challenged and the states were allowed to determine who could vote. But the fact that sslavery was not envedded in the Constitution meant that was not guaranteed by yhr Constitution and that the Federal Government might interfere. And here the Southern delegated faced a major condrumn. That was how to classify the slaves. In a Federal system where representation was in part determined by population, the classification of slaves had major consequences. If the slaves were classifued as prioperty, as most southerners wnted, than they would not be counyted in detemining representartion, limiting Southern voting power. If they were counted as people, then you were fully rcongizing the humanity of the slaves with future legal consequences, one of swhich sas txation. The three-fifths rule would vecome the Federal Fraction which would also be used in computing taxation.

Debate

The Constitutional Convention was the first open airing of the debate overslavery. Southern delegates were like the Northern Delegated influenced by the Enlightenment and the spirit of liberty. the major difference was their view on slvery and belief that slaves were property. This led to extended and often bitter debates. Some delegates were adamentky opposed to slavery and there were impassioned speeches focusing on morality and the the evils of slavery. Luther Martin (Maryland) favored a ban on the international slave trade. He maintained that forbidding Congress from banning the the international slave trade was 'inconsistent with the principles of the revolution and dishonorable to the American character.' Maryland was a border state with divided opinions on slvery. Further south, support for slavery was intense. Gouverneur Morris (Pennsylvania) charged that slavery was a 'nefarious institution' and a 'curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed.' At the time there were even southern critucs of slavery. George Mason (Virginia) was one of the most vocal about slavery. He described the horrors of slavery and called slave owners 'petty tyrant', He said slave traders 'from a lust of gain embarked on this nefarious traffic.' They debate was only restrained by recognition of the need for compromise and the extent the issue was confused by the failure to clearly classify slaves as pesons or proprerty. Most northerns saw themm as persons. Southerner but not all saw them as property. And they wanted prorection of their property rights to be assured. Only to do so would significantlt affect the politival clout of the southern states in the new Federal Government when it was decided to base representation on population. The slave population imn sdome states approached 40 percent. thus not counting the slaves would reduce their representaytion in the House of Representation by nearly half. It is during these debates that slavery began to be referred to as the 'peculiar institution'. Gouverneur Morris (Pennsylvania), an antislavery delegate, claimed that slavery is 'a nefarious institution —- It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed.” Ssouthern delegates promoted practicality, reminding delegates on the purpose of the Convention. They insisted that the purpose of a new constitution was to create a politician, not a moral union. They took the position that moral considerations should be left to each state, not to the new national government -- diufficult position to justify. Two South Carolina delegates were among the most impassioned defenders of slavery. ohn Rutledge (South Carolina) claimed, 'Religion and humanity had nothing to do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle with Nations.' Fellow delegate Charles Pickney (South Carolina) supported Rutledge by insisting that South Carolina would not accept a Congress with the power of 'meddling with the importation of negroes.' Rutledge insisted that 'the true question at present is whether the Southern States shall or shall not be parties to the Union.' The need for compromise was widely understood. One of the Convention’s most vocal critic of slavery, legal scholar James Wilson, was confused by what the Southern delgates were saying. Future president James Madison reported, "Mr. Wilson did not well see on what principle the admission of blacks in the proportion of three fifths could be explained. Are they admitted as Citizens? then why are they not on an equality with White Citizens? are they admitted as property? then why is not other property admitted into the computation? These were difficulties however which he thought must be overruled by the necessity of compromise". [Madison, Notes] Madison is genrally seem as the father of the Constitution and was one of the most brillant minds on display at the Convention. He addressed this issue in the Federalist Papers, "[W]e must deny the fact that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respects whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities; being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects, as property. In being compelled to labor not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty, and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another, the slave may be appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals, which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected on the other hand in his life & in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others; the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of society; not as part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property. The Federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the cases of our slaves, when it views them in their mixt character of person and property. This is in fact their true character." [Madison, Federalist 54.] Madison himself acceoted that the logic was 'strained'.

Slavery Decisions in the Constitution (1789)

We see many authors today in our modern Woke Era claiming that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document. But in fact while the southern deleegates gained conmvenessions, they did not gain what they most wanted, to enshrine slavery in the new Federal Coinstitution as it was in their state constitutions. This simply did not happene. Now it is true that abolition was niot adopted, but to attempt thisd would simply have meant there would be no new Constitution and ultumnately no United States. Not only was slavery not adopted in the Constitution, but the world 'slave' or 'slavery' was not allowed to ne used. And this meant that slavery where it existed was amenable to change. This of course sas ultimately why the Southern states seccedded after President Lincoln's election (1860). Notice how those authors who seek to paint the Federal Constitutionas a slave document all just ignore this findatmental step--the refusal to enshrine slavery in the Constitution. Only by ignoring thid central fact can they begin to make the soecuous argument that the Constitutiion was pro-slavery. It cldearly was not abolitionist, but abolition and pro-=slavery are two different matters. Now there were three provisions concerning slavery that were adopted. None of these three were precisely what the southern delegates wanted or contributed to the success of southern slavery. And one, the abolition of the skave trade was clearly an anti-slavery measure.

Tatiffs

Ine issue imortant to the southern satates was prohibiting the Federal Government from imposing tariffs on exports. This of course pertained to both the North and South. But Southern produce wa more exporrtable than northern produce. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the primary product was tobacco, cotton was not yet very impprtant. And Sothern produce was primarily produced by slave labor. And this could be indirectky regulated through export tariff policy. While slavery itself was esseetially untouchable, it could be affected by taxation.

Critics

We note author after author cricizing the founders for not abolishing slavery. After the convention approved the great compromise, Madison wrote: "It seems now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lies not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination." One author writes, "... by sidestepping the slavery issue, the framers left the seeds for future conflict." Supreme Court Justuce Thurgood Marshall insisted that the Constitution was 'defective from the start'. He objected that the term 'We the People' left out a najority of the poopulation. He complained that while some Delegates voiced 'eloquent objections' to slavery, they 'consented to a document which laid a foundation for the tragic events which were to follow.' It is nunrealistic to think yhat the Delegates were going to mprodyce a perfect document. After all the whole concept of suferage was an experiment at the time. It was a workld dominated by monarchy. The suferage was limited in a number of ways, not just race. The Constututiion by modern standars was fefective, but by 18th century standards was a radical experiment. With all the limigations, no where on earth had the level of engranchisement ofc ghe American Republic. Most od the wiorks had no ebfranchisement at all. The American Constitution needs to be compared to other countries at the time--not to modern merica. Actually the Constitution in 1789 with all of its defects, still compares favorably to muuch of the modern world. And most imprtantly, it set in motion an historical dynamic that led to the full enfranchisemnt of all Americanms. It took a long time, but no loner than other countries. And many countries have still not reached the lecel of enframchisement of the Constitution in 1789. A reader writes, "The argument some revisionists bring up, that the Three-fifths Compromise is offensive, counting a slave as only 3/5 of a citizen, is an example of the deconstructive thinking that sometimes runs wild in academic circles. The compromise was a deal struck among practical-minded delegates at the convention. Some calculation regarding to value of a slave compared to that of a full man, I doubt, ever entered their thinking. The free state delegates feared a permanent ascendancy of slave state representatives in the House; the slave state delegates wanted to protect their economic interests. This compromise satisfied both sides and allowed the convention to proceed to finish its work. I'd add that this 'revisionist' argument also accompanies legitimate claims of discrimination made by aggrieved groups. I still think it's an invention made by some creative minds to stir passions or to sell literature. Academics need fresh points of attack for their publications and career advancements. I have a disdain for most of these revisionist theories because they hijack and sidetrack serious academic research." [Bridges]

Assessment

What the critics of the compromises on sklavery fail to address is what would have happened if the the deklegates had not compromised. It is certain that there woukd have been no Constitution and mo United States. Mosr likely there would have been two Ameruican republics, ome slave and one free. That would have meant that there would have been no Civil War, sparuing the nation that terrible ordeal, but it also woukld have meant that there woukld have been no Emancipation Proclamation and Grand Army of the Republic to free the slaves in the separate southern republic. And what would have happened in World War II if not only America had not been unuited, but Hitler would have had a southern racist American republic to ally with.

Sources

Bridges, John. E-mail message, January 21, 2014.

Madison, James. The Federalist Papers, Federalist 54.

Madison, James. Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787.








CIH







Navigate the Children in History Web Site:
[Return to American debate on slavery]
[Return to Main Constitutional Convention page]
[Return to Main U.S. Constitution and slavery page]
[Return to Main Revolutionary War and slavery page]
[Return to Main U.S. history page]
[About Us]
[Introduction] [Biographies] [Chronology] [Clothing] [Disease and Health] [Economics] [Environmental issues] [Geography] [History] [Human Nature] [Law]
[Nationalism] [Presidents] [Religion] [Royalty] [Science] [Social Class]
[Bibliographies] [Contributions] [FAQs] [Glossaries] [Images] [Index] [Links] [Registration] [Tools]
[Children in History Home]




Created: 5:07 PM 1/22/2014
Last updated: 7:21 AM 2/17/2021