Constitution Framers And Their Stance On Slavery

The United States Constitution's relationship with slavery is a complex and highly debated topic. The Constitution did not explicitly mention slavery or slave, but it included several clauses that impacted the institution of slavery. The Three-Fifths Clause in Article I, Section 2, the ban on Congress ending the slave trade for twenty years, the fugitive slave clause, and the slave insurrection clause are some of the provisions that have been interpreted as protecting or perpetuating slavery. However, some argue that the Constitution's creation of a central government set the stage for slavery's eventual abolition. The intentions and beliefs of the framers regarding slavery are also a subject of debate, with some seeing them as revolutionary thinkers who wanted to protect individual rights, while others criticize them for allowing the continuation of slavery.

Explore related products

Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification

$17.1 $19.99

Class Conflict, Slavery, and the United States Constitution

$19.77 $28

A Slaveholders' Union: Slavery, Politics, and the Constitution in the Early American Republic

$32 $31.99

Slavery’s Fugitives and the Making of the United States Constitution

$36.02 $45

Frederick Douglass, Slavery, and the Constitution, 1845 (Reacting to the Past)

$41.78

Creating a More Perfect Slaveholders' Union: Slavery, the Constitution, and Secession in Antebellum America (Constitutional Thinking)

$10.76 $59.99

The Three-Fifths Clause

The Three-Fifths Compromise was reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The convention addressed the apportionment in the House of Representatives and the number of electoral votes each state would have in presidential elections based on a state's population. The compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a result of the disagreement between slave-holding states and free states. Slave-holding states wanted their entire population to be counted to determine the number of Representatives they could elect and send to Congress. On the other hand, free states wanted to exclude the counting of slave populations in slave states, as those slaves had no voting rights. The compromise effectively gave the Southern states more power in the House relative to the Northern states.

The Three-Fifths Compromise has been criticised for relegating blacks to "three-fifths of a person" status. However, some argue that it encouraged freedom by giving an increase of "two-fifths" of political power to free over slave states. The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 after the Civil War, superseded the Three-Fifths Compromise and explicitly repealed it.

While the Constitution did not use the word "slave", it included several clauses that indirectly addressed slavery and the slave trade. The framers of the Constitution believed that slavery was morally wrong and would eventually die out. They sought to create a constitutional republic that equally protected the rights of all Americans. However, they also wanted to achieve the goal of a stronger Union, and so they made a compromise with slavery to gain the support of southern delegates.

Fugitive Slave Clause

The Fugitive Slave Clause, also known as the Slave Clause or the Fugitives From Labour Clause, was a provision in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. The clause required the return of runaway slaves to their owners. It stated that:

> "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

The Fugitive Slave Clause gave slave owners the right to seize and reclaim their slaves who had escaped to another state. This was based on the interpretation that the owner of an enslaved person had the same right to seize and repossess them in another state as the local laws of their own state granted to them. The 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, has since made the clause mostly irrelevant.

The framers of the Constitution consciously avoided using the words "slave" and "slavery" in the document, including in the Fugitive Slave Clause, as they believed that slavery was morally wrong and would eventually die out. They did not want a permanent moral stain on the document. Instead, they referred to slaves as "persons held to Service or Labour".

The Fugitive Slave Clause was a significant issue during the Civil War, with an effort to repeal the clause failing in 1864. South Carolina's declaration of secession from the Union in 1860 emphasised the importance of the Fugitive Slave Clause to the state, accusing Northern states of violating it. The Constitution of the Confederate States mentioned slavery by name and contained a more rigid form of the Fugitive Slave Clause.

The Constitution's omission of the word 'slave'

The US Constitution is often criticised for its protection of the institution of slavery. Notably, the word "slave" is omitted from the document, despite the presence of several clauses that directly or indirectly address the issue of slavery and the slave trade.

The Constitution's avoidance of the word "slave" is attributed to the Framers' moral qualms about slavery. Many of the Framers, including former slaveholders like Benjamin Franklin, held reservations about the morality of slavery. They believed that slavery was morally wrong and would eventually die out, and they did not want a permanent moral stain on the document. The ""Father of the Constitution," James Madison, criticised slavery during the Constitutional Convention, stating that it was a form of ""oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." Similarly, George Mason feared that slavery would bring "the judgment of heaven on a country."

The omission of the word "slave" in the Constitution is also attributed to the Framers' desire to avoid sullying the document and to maintain a sense of ambiguity. They recognised that explicitly mentioning slavery would tarnish the document and reflect poorly on the nation. Additionally, by keeping their deliberations behind closed doors, the Framers intended for their final written work to be judged independently, without the bias exhibited in the debates.

Despite the absence of the word "slave," the Constitution included several clauses that addressed slavery. These included the Three-Fifths Clause, which counted three-fifths of a state's slave population for representation purposes, giving the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The Constitution also included a fugitive slave clause, requiring the return of runaway slaves to their owners, and it prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years. These clauses provided important protections for slavery and have been interpreted as evidence of the Constitution's pro-slavery stance.

The interpretation of the Constitution's stance on slavery remains a subject of debate. While some view it as a pro-slavery document, others argue that it laid the foundation for the eventual abolition of slavery by creating a central government powerful enough to end the institution. The omission of the word "slave" adds complexity to these interpretations, highlighting the Framers' ambivalent approach to addressing slavery directly within the text of the Constitution.

Explore related products

A Necessary Evil?: Slavery and the Debate of the Constitution

$91.7

Born Equal: Remaking America’s Constitution, 1840–1920

$36.96 $40

Lincoln's Constitution

$8.25 $17

The U.S. Constitution and Secession: A Documentary Anthology of Slavery and White Supremacy

$29.99 $37.99

Lincoln and the Politics of Slavery: The Other Thirteenth Amendment and the Struggle to Save the Union (Civil War America)

$56.51 $27.95

A Glorious Liberty: Frederick Douglass and the Fight for an Antislavery Constitution

$19.95 $19.95

The Framers' intentions

The intentions of the framers of the US Constitution regarding slavery are a subject of debate. The Constitution did not explicitly mention the word "slave" or "slavery", and instead included clauses that protected the institution of slavery and the slave trade. However, some argue that the framers believed slavery was morally wrong and would eventually disappear.

The Constitution included several clauses that protected slavery and the slave trade. The Three-Fifths Clause in Article I, Section 2, counted three-fifths of a state's slave population for representation purposes, giving southern states greater representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The Constitution also prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years and included a fugitive slave clause that required the return of runaway slaves to their owners. These provisions have been interpreted as evidence that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document.

However, others argue that the framers of the Constitution believed slavery was morally wrong and would eventually disappear. The framers consciously avoided using the words "slave" or "slavery" in the document because they recognised that it would sully the document and did not want a permanent moral stain on it. They referred to slaves as "persons" instead. Some framers, such as Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, were members of anti-slavery societies, and James Madison and George Mason criticised slavery during the Constitutional Convention.

The framers made a compromise on slavery to achieve their goal of a stronger Union of republican self-government. Some slaveholding delegations threatened to walk out of the Constitution if slavery was threatened, which could have resulted in separate free and slave confederacies instead of the United States. By including protections for slavery in the Constitution, the framers believed they were creating a central government powerful enough to eventually abolish the institution.

In conclusion, while the Constitution included provisions that protected slavery, the intentions of the framers regarding slavery are complex and subject to interpretation. Some believed that slavery was morally wrong and would eventually disappear, while others prioritised the creation of a strong central government over the immediate abolition of slavery.

The Constitution as a living document

The Constitution of the United States is considered a living document, and its interpretation and application have evolved over time. The document's original intent regarding slavery has been a subject of debate, with some arguing it was a pro-slavery document, while others claim it laid the groundwork for abolition. The Constitution included several clauses that protected slavery, such as the Three-Fifths Clause, the ban on Congress ending the slave trade for twenty years, and the fugitive slave clause. However, the framers consciously avoided using the words "slave" or "slavery," indicating their moral qualms about the institution.

The Three-Fifths Clause in Article I, Section 2, stated that for representation in Congress, enslaved Black people in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants. This clause has been interpreted as either pro-slavery, giving more power to southern states, or as a step towards freedom, as it gave an increase in political power to free states over slave states. The Constitution also included a provision prohibiting Congress from banning the importation of slaves until 1808, which some argue was a compromise to form a stronger Union and prevent the country from being divided into free and slave confederacies.

The framers of the Constitution had differing views on slavery. Many had moral objections to the institution, with some becoming members of anti-slavery societies. During the Constitutional Convention, there were eloquent objections to slavery, and some framers believed slavery contradicted the natural rights of all Americans and was morally wrong. However, others sought to protect their economic interests tied to slavery. The compromise made in the Constitution regarding slavery was a result of the tension between these differing views and the threat of slaveholding delegations walking out of the Convention.

The Constitution's interpretation has evolved, and it has been used to address issues the framers never explicitly outlined, such as education case law. The document's broad and open-textured language has allowed for its interpretation to adapt to changing societal needs, such as governing a digital world in the 21st century. This evolution of interpretation aligns with the progressive view of "non-originalism," which believes the Constitution can evolve through interpretation and amendment. The conservative view, "originalism," maintains that interpretation must follow the original understanding of a provision until amended.

Frequently asked questions