Simone Lawson
The original United States Constitution did not contain the words slave or slavery within its text. However, it directly addressed American slavery in several provisions and implicitly protected the institution. The omission of these words reflected the framers' conflicted stance on slavery, prioritizing political unity over abolition. The Constitution included clauses such as the Three-Fifths Clause and the Fugitive Slave Clause, which protected slaveholding interests and entrenched slavery in the fabric of American governance. The 13th Amendment, passed in 1865, finally abolished slavery in the United States, but the racial inequalities stemming from slavery persisted.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Does the word "slavery" exist in the original constitution? | No |
| Does the word "slave" exist in the original constitution? | No |
| Does the constitution deal with American slavery? | Yes |
| How many provisions in the constitution deal with American slavery? | 5 |
| Does the constitution protect slavery? | Yes |
| Does the constitution contain euphemisms for slavery? | Yes |
| Examples of euphemisms used | "Person held to Service or Labour", "Importation of Persons Clause", "Three-Fifths Clause" |
| Does the constitution contain a "Fugitive Slave Clause"? | Yes |
| Does the constitution contain a "Slave Trade Clause"? | Yes |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
$9 $9
What You'll Learn
The word slavery was avoided in the Constitution
The original United States Constitution, drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1789, did not contain the words "slave" or "slavery" within its text. However, this does not mean that the document did not deal with the issue of American slavery. The Constitution included several provisions that directly or indirectly addressed the institution of slavery, and the framers of the Constitution made deliberate choices to avoid using explicit language about slavery.
The omission of the word "slavery" in the Constitution can be attributed to the framers' conflicted stance towards the institution. Many of them personally opposed slavery on moral grounds, but they prioritized political unity over abolition. As a result, they resorted to using euphemisms and indirect language to address slavery. For example, they used phrases such as "Person held to Service or Labour" instead of explicit references to slavery. This reflected their attempt to avoid a moral confrontation while preserving the institution.
The framers' avoidance of the word "slavery" also stemmed from their belief that slavery would eventually die out. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, slavery had already been banned in several states, and many drafters assumed that slavery would decline and disappear on its own, especially with the industrialization of the North and the declining productivity of crops in the South. However, this assumption proved to be incorrect, and the invention of the modern cotton gin in 1793 revived the economic viability of slavery in the South.
Despite not using the word "slavery," the Constitution included several clauses that directly impacted the institution. These included the Three-Fifths Clause in Article 1, Section 2, 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. Additionally, the Fugitive Slave Clause in Article 4, Section 2, required states to return fugitive slaves to their owners. These clauses have been interpreted as providing important protections for slavery and have been cited as evidence of the Constitution's pro-slavery stance.
The framers' decision to avoid using the word "slavery" in the Constitution has been a subject of debate and criticism. Some, like Thurgood Marshall, the first African American Supreme Court justice, argued that the framers' omission of the word was a recognition that slavery would sully the document. Others, like abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, burned the Constitution, calling it "a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell," highlighting his belief that it was a pro-slavery document. The interpretation of the Constitution's stance on slavery remains a contentious issue, with some arguing that it could be read as both pro-slavery and anti-slavery depending on the clauses cited and their interpretation.
Jefferson's Vision: A Flexible Constitution
You may want to see also
The Constitution's Fugitive Slave Clause
The original United States Constitution did not contain the words "slave" or "slavery" within its text. However, it dealt directly with American slavery in at least five of its provisions and indirectly protected the institution in other parts of the document. The Constitution's framers avoided using direct language about slavery, instead using euphemisms like "Person held to Service or Labour". This reflected their attempt to avoid moral confrontation while preserving the institution of slavery.
The Fugitive Slave Clause, also known as the Slave Clause or the Fugitives From Labour Clause, is one such provision that protected the institution of slavery. It is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
> "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."
This clause, while not mentioning the word "slave", formed the basis for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which gave slaveholders the right to capture enslaved persons who ran away. It provided a means for enforcing the extradition of fugitive slaves, requiring states to return them to their owners. The Fugitive Slave Clause was a compromise offered by Pierce Butler and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina during the Constitutional Convention. It remained in full effect until the abolition of slavery under the Thirteenth Amendment, which rendered it unenforceable.
The Fugitive Slave Clause was highly controversial and contributed to disputes over whether the Constitution was pro-slavery or anti-slavery. Some argued that it was a pro-slavery measure that protected slaveholding interests. Others, like James Oakes, suggested that the Constitution could be read as both pro-slavery and anti-slavery, depending on the clauses cited and their interpretation. The Fugitive Slave Clause was also a source of tension between Northern and Southern states, with Southern states accusing the North of violating it by not returning fugitive slaves.
Baserunning Glove Strike: Out or Safe?
You may want to see also
The Three-Fifths Clause
The Three-Fifths Compromise stated that three-fifths of each state's slave population would be counted as part of the state's total population when apportioning the House of Representatives. This gave the Southern states more power in the House relative to the Northern states and resulted in the South having extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College. This compromise was later repealed by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a reflection of the framers' conflicted stance towards slavery. While some framers opposed slavery on moral grounds, they prioritized political unity over abolition. The use of euphemisms like "Person held to Service or Labour" instead of explicit references to slavery was an attempt to navigate the moral dilemma while preserving the institution.
The Three-Fifths Compromise had significant implications for the representation of slave states in the House of Representatives and contributed to the growing tensions between the North and the South, ultimately leading to the Civil War.
It is important to note that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" appears in the Three-Fifths Clause or anywhere in the unamended Constitution. This deliberate omission allowed for a level of ambiguity in the interpretation of the Constitution, which could be read as both pro-slavery and anti-slavery.
Judge's Trump Card: Immigration Policy and Constitution Clash
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Constitution's indirect protection of slavery
The original United States Constitution did not contain the words "slave" or "slavery" within its text. However, it indirectly protected the institution of slavery through several measures. Firstly, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, known as the "Importation of Persons Clause" or the Slave Trade Clause, prohibited the federal government from banning the importation of "persons" for twenty years after the Constitution took effect. This clause was a compromise between Southern states, where slavery was vital to the economy, and states moving towards abolition. By avoiding explicit references to slavery, the framers of the Constitution sidestepped moral confrontations while preserving the institution.
Secondly, the "Three-Fifths Clause" in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, provided that representation in Congress would be based on the population of free persons, excluding "Indians not taxed" and counting "three-fifths of all other persons." These “other persons” referred to enslaved African Americans, who comprised around a third of the Southern states' population. This clause gave the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College, thus protecting the interests of slaveholders.
Thirdly, the "Fugitive Slave Clause" in Article IV, Section 2, required that escaped slaves be returned to their owners. This clause further entrenched slavery by making it a national issue and embedding it into American governance. Additionally, the Constitution implicitly protected slavery by prohibiting federal interference with the international slave trade and ensuring the survival of the institution until the Civil War and the passage of the 13th Amendment in 1865.
The framers of the Constitution prioritized political unity and a strong central government over immediate abolition, believing that concessions on slavery were necessary to gain the support of Southern delegates. While some members of the Constitutional Convention objected to slavery, the economic and political realities made substantive action against it impossible at the time. The Constitution's indirect protection of slavery through euphemistic language and compromising clauses laid the foundation for the tragic persistence of slavery and racial inequality in American history.
Enumerated and Implied Powers: Commerce Regulation Explained
You may want to see also
The Constitution's direct dealing with American slavery
The original United States Constitution did not contain the words "slave" or "slavery" within its text. However, it directly dealt with American slavery in at least five of its provisions and indirectly protected the institution in other parts of the document. The framers of the Constitution consciously avoided using the words "slave" or "slavery", recognizing that it would sully the document. Instead, they used euphemisms like "person held to Service or Labour".
The framers' conflicted stance towards slavery led them to compromise, reflecting their attempt to sidestep moral confrontation while preserving the institution. For example, the Three-Fifths Clause counted three-fifths of a state's slave population when apportioning representation, giving the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College. The Fugitive Slave Clause required the return of runaway slaves to their owners. These clauses have been interpreted as the "'bricks and mortar' of the proslavery Constitution".
On the other hand, some argue that the Constitution also had antislavery provisions. For instance, Congress was granted the power to make 'all needful rules and regulations' for the territories, which was interpreted as authorizing the federal government to ban slavery from the territories. The Fifth Amendment declares that 'no person' could be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, reflecting a principle of fundamental human equality.
The omission of explicit references to slavery in the Constitution has been attributed to the framers' desire to avoid divisive language that could have prevented an agreement on the document. The economic and political realities of slavery also made substantive action impossible during the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution's indirect approach to slavery, through euphemisms and compromises, contributed to a moral and legal crisis that would persist for decades.
How the Constitution Shapes Citizen Participation
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, the word 'slavery' does not exist in the original US Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution avoided using the word 'slavery' because they believed it would sully the document. They also wanted to avoid a moral confrontation while preserving the institution. Instead, they used euphemisms like "Person held to Service or Labour" and ""Importation of Persons Clause".
Although the word 'slavery' is not mentioned, the Constitution dealt directly with American slavery in at least five of its provisions and indirectly protected the institution elsewhere in the document. For example, the Three-Fifths Clause in Article 1, Section 2, provided that apportionment of representatives would be based on the population of free persons excluding "three-fifths of all other persons", who were the slaves.
This is a matter of debate. The Constitution's Fugitive Slave Clause and Three-Fifths Clause have been interpreted as pro-slavery. However, others argue that the Constitution's grant of power to Congress to make 'all needful rules and regulations' for the territories authorized the federal government to ban slavery.
