|
The Constitution was a controversial document. The debate over Ratification is discussed in detail in the Federalist Papers. Of course Publicus (Hamilton, Madison, and Jay) provide the arguments for ratification, but the issues are clearly spelt out. Slavery namely the 3/5s clause was addressed in Federalist Paper 54. The men who created the Constitution were men of the Enligtenment. This included salve-holding southners like Washington and Madison. (Jefferson was absent and critical.) Perhaps no issue addressed by the Englightenment was more important than the rights of man and resiatance to opression. It is true that most did not see African slaves as full persons. But some did. It is no accident that one of the outgrowths of the Enligtenment was the Abolitiionist Movement [Jönsson]. And the two key movements were in Britain and America. ,
It is no accident that despite millennia of slavery that Abolotionist Movenemts were only fonded during the Enligtenment. The Abolitionist Movement were, however, at only a preliminary stage while the Slave Power (Abolitionist term) was firmly established, especially in the Southern colonies which became states. The Abolitiojist Movement came to see to see the Constitution as a pro-slavery document, a theme that the Woke Generation has picked up on. Any real assessment of the Constitution, however, shows that this was simply not the case. Actually the Constitutiin was a compromise between Northern Enlightenment thought and Southern slavery interests. It is surprising that given the imprtance of slavery in the South that a comprpmise was reached that prevented slavery from being enshrined in the Constitution. Slavery was enshrined in the coinstututions of the Southern states. There are three provisions of the Constitution that deal directly with slavery. And none of them are precisely what the Slave Power--despite the fact that six of the 13 colonies were southern slave states and slavery was legal in the northern states. The finalmprovisions of the Constitrion was a great disappounment for the Slave Power. Of course only a abolition would have satisfied the modern Woke Genertration. But a Abolition clause would have been the worst possible measure for slaveds, almost all of whom lived in the South. It would havee maent that there would been no United States. The southern states would have never ratified the Constitution. And it meant that there would have been not Union Army to crush a slave Confederacy and end the institution of slavery in the 1860s.
Perhaps no issue addressed by the Englightenment was more important than the rights of man and resiatance to opression. The foundung documents of the American Republic, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, were arguably the greatest chievements of the Rnligtenment. It is true that most Euripeans nd nericns at the time did not see African slaves as full persons. But some did. Even so, most objected to the institution of slsvery as a moral abomination.
It is no accident that one of the outgrowths of the Enligtenment was the Abolitiionist Movement [Jönsson]. And the two key movements were in Britain and America. It is no accident that despite millennia of slavery that Abolotionist Movenemts were only fonded during the Enligtenment. Even so, it needs to be srreeseed that the bckbonme of the Abolitionist Movements were christian churches, especially the Quakets and the Methodists.
And there was a strong elenent of religious slkepticism among Enlifgtenment thinkers. The Abolitionist Movement was, however, at only a preliminary stage while the Slave Power (Abolitionist term) was firmly established, especially in the Southern colonies which became states. The Abolitiojist Movement came to see to see the Constitution as a pro-slavery document, a theme that the modern Woke Generation has picked up on.
One of the measures thatb made the Articles of Comfederation unworkable was taxation. Representation was not an issue because each sate got one vote. Thus tiny Rhode Island got the same vote as a large state like Pennsylvamia and Virginia. (New York was growing, but nokt yet as imprtant as Peensylvania and Virginia.) But when taxation came up, the representation rule was clkearly unnworable. Even if Rhodel IKsland was willing to pay as much as the larger states, it did not have the ability to do so. So some other system had to be decided on. The economy at the time was latrgely based in land and agriculture. So land values was am obvious choice and agreed upon. While onvious and theoretically reasonable, it was completely unworkable. Each state for obvious reasons low-balled their land values to reduce tax assessmnents. And Congress had no way to assess the values sunbitted by each state. So this bvecame one of many issues that needed to be addressed if the American experiment was going to suceeed.
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 exosted, 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 wee, 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 morfe influence. The smaller sdtates did not want to lose all ibfluence. So the most important compromise at the Convention was creating two houses. Which was not a difficult step at the Britosh Parliament had two houses. In the Senate each sate woild have two seats. In the House the larger asates would haved more inflience. The failed land value system of the Articles of Confederation was discarded and a system of proportional respresentation based on population. Thjis inevitably led directly to the issue of slavery. Just was going to be counted. The Southern states wher the great bulk of the salves were located wanted them counted, many Northrern delegates did not. 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 satres had already abloshed the salve trade including several southern states. This is notable because Southern concern over slavery was more oronounced at the time than it would be kater. 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 aof both political and economic power in the new American Republic.
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.
Any real assessment of the Constitution shows that this was simply not the case. Actually the Constitutiin was a compromise between Northern Enlightenment thought and Southern slavery interests. It is surprising that given the imprtance of slavery in the South that a comprpmise was reached that prevented slavery from being enshrined in the Constitution.
One scholar explains, "As it happens, the most important thing in that respect is what did not go into the Constitution. Several members of the convention wanted slaves to be defined distinctly as a form of property. This was defeated. Even so, by the late 1850s, many southerners were insisting that this was all that slaves WERE -- and Chief Justice Taney would say, as quite a few stump orators did, that the Constitution explicitly protected the slaves as a form of property. In fact, it didn't -- and did not do so anywhere, explicitly." [Summers]
Slavery was enshrined in the constitutions of the Southern states. While the Constitution recognized slavery, it did not authorize it. Rather the Constitution established the principle that powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government become the jurisdiction of the states. The authority over slavery and voting rights fell under the jurisdiction of each state. And this could only be changed by amending the constitution. And because of the difficult amendment process, the Southern slave states could block any effort to abolish slavery through amending the Constitution. This prevented forced abolition, but at the time slavery was considered a dying institution and it kept the southern states in the union. Writing abolition into the Constitutiin would have actuallhy worked against the slave population. The southern states would have forned a separate slave nation with no possibility of an abolitionist movement or emancipation. Yet we see countless comments like, "The Constitution of 1787 was a proslavery document, designed to prevent any national assault on slavery, while at the same time structured to protect the interests of slaveowners at the expense of African Americans and their antislavery white allies." [Finkleman, "Affirmative"] Yet it was the slave holders that led the Southern states out of the Union. If the Constutution was such a pro-slavery document as alledged, why did the Southern states seceed? They could not tolerate the free speech enhjoyed by the increasingly vocal Abboliniist movement and the rising political and economic power of the free northern states which would resist the the entrance of any additional slave states vinto the Union. All of this was the result of the great anti-slabery victory at the Constitutional Convention.
Not only was slavery mot enshrinedin the Constitution, the terms slave and slavery do nor appear anywhere in the Contitution. This was nort the case in the many different slve state contututions. Earger in he plzaces where slaves nd indetured servants are rffered to, the Cinstitution redfers to them as 'persons'. This was not what the souuthern delegtes wanted, but they ukltumsaely compromiosed sand accpted this. This has lergal significance in English Common Law. The dictionary definition of a person is, 'a human being regarded as an individual'. The definition in legal terms is, 'one (such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties'. Thus obviously referring to slaves as persons would have had significant legal consequnces had the Civil War not resulted in the Emancipation Proclmation and the 13h Amemdmnt ending slavery.
The Constitution does not use the term slavery, but there are provisions in the Constitution that while not authorizing, did recognize slavery. Some argue that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document. Actually it was an anti-slavery document. The Constitutiin did not abolish slavery. This would have split the country and created an independen South six decades before the Civil War.There are three provisions of the Constitution that deal directly with slavery. And none of them are precisely what the Slave Power--despite the fact that six of the 13 colonies were southern slave states and slavery was legal in the northern states. The anti slavery provisions included: First, an arrangement written in to the Constitution by which for voting purposes slaves would be counted as three-fifths (3/5s) of a person. The Woke Generation see this as insulting andf not recognizing the humanity of African Americams. In fact, it limited the voting power of what became the Slave Power in the House of Represenatives. And it would in the House during the Ante Bellum period that slavery would befirdst challenged. Second, The Constitution also included a provision authorizing Congress to end the African slave trade. And this step was taken by Congress as soon as allowed with little opposition. Third, there was a fugative slave provosion--lthough the term slave was not used. This was a provision the Southern delegated demnded and would not compromise on.
The Constutution that the Southern States signed on to containged an economic time bomb for slavery. This is why Northrn anti-slavery forces were willing to compromise ob the issue. Trgically that tgime nomb was delayed by Eli Whitney and the invention of the cotton gin, which allowed the slavery to be perrpetuated for several decadeds, but did not undo the time bomb, only delayed it. The great coindrum of slavery was that while:
"Slaves contributed to a state’s wealth, so if one of two similar states with the same free population also contained slaves, then the state containing slaves would produce more tax revenue, but
although slaves produced wealth, they did not produce as much wealth as an equal number of free people. This was because slaves could not sell their labor or talents in the free market, where incentives for production were strongest and labor and talents fully valued. Thus, given two similar and equally-populous states, one entirely free and the other slaveholding, the state entirely free would produce more tax revenue." [Stroup] Thus the free nothern states would ultimately dominate the sothern slave states in any Union.
The final provisions of the Constitrion was a great disappounment for the Slave Power. Of course only a abolition would have satisfied the modern Woke Genertration. But a Abolition clause would have been the worst possible measure for slaveds, almost all of whom lived in the South. It would havee maent there would been no United States. The southern states would have never ratified the Constitutiin. And it meant that there would have been no Union Army to crush a slave Confederacy and end the institution of slavery in the 1860s.
The Constitution was a controversial document. The debate over Ratification is discussed in detail in the Federalist Papers. Of course Publicus (Hamilton, Madison, and Jay) provide the arguments for ratification, but the issues are clearly spelt out. Slavery namely the 3/5s clause was addressed in Federalist Paper 54. The men who created the Constitution were men of the Enligtenment. This included salve-holding southners like Washington and Madison. (Jefferson was absent and critical.)
As time went on, the Constitution became a sancosanct document. European and Asian countries were commonly bsed oln a core ethnic/religious group. This was not the case in America. The English core was certainly imprtant, but became inceasingly less dominant as time proigressed. As result, it was the Constitution thst becane the uiconic core of the American Republic.
Many delegates, including many from the Southern states, believed or at least hoped that slavery would gradually die out as individual states abolished it. Slave holders like Washioington, who chaired the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson, Madison, and other recognized that slavery was an evil system, but did not know how to end it. They saw in dying out in the North and hoped the same would occur in the South. It did not, however, happen in the South. And the Federal Constitiution had nothing to do with the transient, but very powerful success in the South. It was primarily due to the advance of technology. Eli Witney invented the cotton gin, revolutionaizing the economics of cotton (1793). This poved to be one of the key inventions of the Industrial Revolution. What had been a minor crop became the foundation of wealth in the South. The growing demand for cotton in Europe had already been there, but cotton was not a valuable crop because removing the seeds from the harvested cotton was so labor intensive. Even using slave labor it was not practical. Witney changed that. Citton vedcame white gild and made fortunes. Even so, even by the time of the Civil War Southern planters could see the writing on the wall. Plantation cotton agriculture rapidly depleted the soil. So cotton agriculture moved west to find virgin, productive soil. in the the new states of Alabama and Mississippi and eventually Arkansas and Texas. This is why the southern planters were also intent on foundinbg new slave states in the lands obtained from Mexico (1848). And while there was no political support in the North for a war to liberate southern states, there was substantial opposition to admitting new slave states. Southern planters becides being incensed by Abolitionist attacks, understood that it was going to be difficult to extend slavery into the Southwest as long as they were part of the Federal Union. And that this situation was only becoming more difficult as the population and ecomnomic power of the free states grew.
There are today more and growing critics of the Condtitution, including the treatment of slavery and sufferage. This is not to say that this mans that the Constitution is no longer a legitimate fram for Americam demoicracy. The increasing number of critics is more a reflectiin of how liberals (now largely socialists) domibate the market place of idea (academia, media, Hollywoos, social media, ect) and the increasingly over ways in which they are comforable in silencing consevative ideas and thought. The general tactic is to label conservative thought as racist and this legitmizing unprecendent cemsorship. We reject any effort to limit discusion or exclude ideas from the public fora. And thus even though we are agreat admirer of the Constitutioin, are more than willing to disus the various criticisms.
One vocal critic believes that er the framers could have done much more to slow the growth of slavery reduce its permanence in Ameticn society. He believes that the delegates’ lack of conviction in doing anything substantial about slavery 'is part of the tragedy of American history.' [Finkleman, Little, pp.415-17.] This simply ignores the facts. The delegates did several nhings very substabtial: they refused inved slavery in the Cinstitution, they limited Southern representation in Comgress, and they privided no enforcement mechanism to the fugitive slave clause. And he ignores the imnpact of technology AFTER the Constitution was ratified. One important historian fousing on slavery recites the stnandard litany, that the Constitution "authorizes the continuation of the slave trade for at least another twenty years, asserts the right to count three-fifths of the slaves for purposes of representation in Congress,' and demands that runaway slaves be caught and dragged back to perpetual servitude. [Franklin, p. 28.] But all of these are matters that can be viewed both ways. The skave trase was ended only 20 years after the Constitution was rattifid. The Three-fits rule limited Southern represention. And there was no enfircement mechsnism for spprehending runaway slaves. Notice that Franklin does not compare the United states to other countries. Another historian blames the framers for forming the Union came at "at a terrible price". [Morris, p.287.] That comment has a rhetorical floruish, but is poor history. The framrts did not create slavery. It was aninstitution that already existed. And abolotion was not an an option available to them. Some northern sattes had begun to abolish slavery, but still existed even in the North. And any threat of abolition would have meant there would have been no Federal Union and at best a truncated United States. That would have meant a mich more terrible price. There would have been no Civil War to keep the Southern states in the Uniin and in the process to end slavery.
This is a complicated discission and needs a short summarry. The Federal Constitutiion created at the Constitutional Convention was a decidedly anti-slavery document for several reasons. The South got some concessions, but concessions that simoly delayed the inmevitable--abolition. Whuch of course is why most of the slave states seceeded from the Union. Let review the slave matters in the Constititution.
1) Unlike the southern state constitutions, slavery was not enshrined in the Constiution. This meant that the Southern Planters could never be sure about the continuation of the institution.
2) the Bill of Rights quaranteed free speech which meant that the slavery could be discussed and allowed the emergence of the Abolitionist Movement.
3) The Three-fifths Compromose reognized that slaves were not just property, but people. It also limited slave power in the House of Representatives. Where anti-slavery forces would take hold.
4) The slave trade would be abolished in short order (1807) ending the imprtation of captured fricans and allowing U.S. Navy slave trade patrols off West Africa.
5) The South got a fugitive slave provision, but without any mechanism for enforcement in an increasingly anti-slavery North.
6) Once locked into a Federal Union, the ticking economic time bomb began running, namely that free labor is not as efficent as slave labor. While it was delayed by Eli Whitney's cotton gin it ultimately created a Federal Union in which the Northern Free sates wereb mmore populated and emenmsely more powerful economically than the Southern Slave states. A CIH reader provides an excellent summary, "I believe that the Constitution and the slavery clause issue shows the difficulty in uniting groups with different values, ideals and localized aspirations but united in a broader vision. The beauty of what the Constitution demonstrates is not that slavery was a product of white privilege and greed, but that it allowed for the eventual abolition of slavery". The spped at wgich it iccurred can be criticised, but bo country did a great deal better. An it was American tht led the way on both male and female sufferage. It is importabnt to note that when American was founded, thar even the idea of a republic based on rukle by ordinary citizens was a very radical propsition. And from 1789 on, America led the experiment in political democracy and widening the electoral franchise. Only very poorly educated ibservers could believe that any countru would from the onmset create a perfect consitution.
Much of the discussion of the Constitution and slavery athe reader can see here is subjdctive. Such as a discussion of the two-thirds clause. It is basicllt the glass half full or half empty question. There re a range of matters that or bjective, based on fact. And of course the woke crowd that diominatesd modern duscourse choses to take the glass half enpty argument. One noted Harvard histortian, Bernard Bailyn, make the definitive factual statement about the Constitutuon and slavery. H points out that before the Constitution was dopted, slaverfy was not a major issue of American diuscourse. After the Constitution was adopted, here never was a time when slasvery was not an important issue. [Bailyn] There are other pertinent matters that are too often ignored by woke histirians and media commebtators. All of which occurred in the ciuntry created bu bthe Coinstitution abd central to this was the First Amendment, the crown jewel of merican democracy with its grarantee of ftree speech. . . .
Bailyn, Bernard in Ken Burns, "Franklin" (PBS: 2022).
Finkeleman, Paul. "Affirmative action for the master class: The creatiion of the proslavery constitution," Akron Law Review Vol. 32, Iss 3, Article 1 (1999).
Finkelman, Paul. 'The Founders and Slavery: Little Ventured, Little Gained.
Frankli, John Hope. "Who Divided this House?".
Morris, Richard B. The Forging of the Union.
Stroup, Jane Shaw, "Guest comment: Robert Natelson on Allen Guelzo," Jane takes on History (May 3, 2019).
Summers, Mark W. Personal communications (February 15, 2001).
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Return to Main American debate on slavery page]
[Return to Main American U.S. Consstitution 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]
