Omar Bennett
The US Constitution's relationship with slavery is a complex and contentious topic. The Constitution, which was written in 1787, did not explicitly mention slavery but included several clauses that impacted the institution of slavery and the lives of enslaved people. One of the most well-known is the Three-Fifths Clause, which counted enslaved people as three-fifths of a person for representation and taxation purposes, giving southern states with large enslaved populations more power in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The Constitution also included the Fugitive Slave Clause, requiring escaped slaves to be returned to their owners, and the Importation Clause, which prohibited Congress from banning the slave trade for 20 years. These clauses have been interpreted as protecting and institutionalizing slavery, and the absence of a direct mention of slavery in the Constitution has been criticized as a flaw that contributed to racial inequalities that persist today. On the other hand, some argue that the Constitution's creation of a strong central government eventually led to the abolition of slavery through the 13th Amendment in 1865. The debates and compromises made during the Constitutional Convention regarding slavery continue to shape discussions about equality and justice in the United States.
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Three-Fifths Clause
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a result of the dispute between the Northern and Southern states. The Southern, slaveholding 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, the Northern, free states wanted to exclude the counting of slave populations in slave states, as those slaves had no voting rights.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a resolution to this dispute, counting three-fifths of each state's slave population towards that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives. This gave the Southern states a disproportionate advantage in terms of representation in the House of Representatives. This advantage was further exacerbated by the fact that the same three-fifths ratio was used to determine the federal tax contribution required by each state, increasing the direct federal tax burden of the slaveholding states.
The Three-Fifths Compromise has been criticised as a clause that purportedly meant slaves were considered less than fully human. It gave greater power to the Southern states, with some arguing that it encouraged slavery by providing an incentive for slaveholding states to increase their slave populations to gain more representation. However, others, such as Frederick Douglass, believed that it encouraged freedom by giving an increase of "two-fifths" of political power to free over slave states.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was later superseded and explicitly repealed by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which provided that "representatives shall be apportioned... counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
Citizenship Clause: Federal Office and the Constitution
You may want to see also
The Importation Clause
The clause states:
> "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight..."
This clause was carefully worded to avoid mentioning "slavery" or "slaves" directly, instead referring to the "importation of persons". This was likely because the framers of the Constitution recognised that explicitly including support for slavery would sully the document.
The compromise reached in the Importation Clause was a reflection of the delicate balance that had to be struck at the Constitutional Convention to avoid the convention being ruined. Many of the framers had moral qualms about slavery, but some relied on it for economic reasons. There was a real possibility that the convention would result in separate free and slave confederacies, so a compromise was necessary to form a united country.
The American Constitution: Monopolies and Their Impact
You may want to see also
The Fugitive Slave Clause
The exact wording of the clause is as follows:
> 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.
It is notable that, as with other references to slavery in the Constitution, the words "slave" and "slavery" are not used in this clause. Instead, the phrase "held to Service or Labour" is used to refer to enslaved people. This was a conscious decision by the framers of the Constitution, who recognised that the use of the word "slave" would sully the document.
Travel Ban: 9th Circuit's Vote on Constitutionality
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Compromises
The Three-Fifths Clause, also known as Article 1, Section 2, was a compromise made during the creation of the US Constitution. It 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. Some argue that this clause gave greater power to the southern states, while others, like Frederick Douglass, believe it encouraged freedom by giving "an increase of 'two-fifths' of political power to free over slave states".
Article 1, Section 9, also known as the Importation Clause, was another compromise that prohibited Congress from banning the slave trade for 20 years. This clause was included in the Constitution despite moral qualms about slavery among the framers, some of whom were members of anti-slavery societies.
The Fugitive Slave Clause, or Article 4, Section 2, was a compromise that required escaped slaves to be returned to their owners.
These compromises were made to achieve the goal of a stronger Union of republican self-government. The Framers sought to create a Union that included the institution of slavery, but with a regime of liberty that would hopefully lead to slavery's ultimate extinction. However, these compromises also protected the institution of slavery and contributed to the racial inequalities that persist in the United States today.
UK Constitution: Fact or Fiction?
You may want to see also
The Abolition of Slavery
Slavery was a contentious issue during the drafting of the US Constitution, and it remained a divisive force throughout American history until its abolition in 1865. The 13th Amendment, passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, abolished slavery in the United States. This amendment came at the end of the Civil War, a conflict that was, in large part, fought over the issue of slavery.
The Constitution, drafted in 1787, was influenced by the prevailing Enlightenment philosophies of natural rights and the growing religious convictions against slavery. Many of the framers had moral qualms about slavery, and some, including Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, became members of anti-slavery societies. However, slavery was a deeply entrenched institution, and the framers had to make compromises to avoid a divide between free and slave states.
The Constitution included several clauses that addressed slavery, such as the Three-Fifths Clause, which counted three-fifths of a state's slave population for representation purposes, giving the South more power in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The Importation Clause prohibited Congress from banning the slave trade for 20 years, and the Fugitive Slave Clause required that escaped slaves be returned to their owners.
Despite these protections for slavery in the Constitution, there were also those who argued for its abolition. Abraham Lincoln, for instance, believed that the Constitution put slavery "in the course of ultimate extinction." In 1863, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring all slaves in rebelling states to be forever free. However, this proclamation did not end slavery nationwide, and Lincoln recognized the need for a constitutional amendment.
The 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, was initially passed in the Senate in April 1864 but faced opposition in the House. Lincoln played an active role in ensuring its passage, making it part of the Republican Party platform in the 1864 election. The House approved the amendment in January 1865, and Lincoln approved the Joint Resolution in February, submitting it to the state legislatures for ratification. By December 6, 1865, the required three-fourths of states had ratified the amendment, officially abolishing slavery in the United States.
Supreme Court Rulings: Bound by the Constitution?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
This is a highly contested question. While the Constitution did include clauses that protected the institution of slavery, it also created a central government that was powerful enough to eventually abolish it.
There were four clauses that protected slavery. The first was the Three-Fifths Clause in Article I, Section 2, which counted three-fifths of a state’s slave population for representation and taxation purposes. The second was the Importation Clause in Article I, Section 9, which prohibited Congress from banning the slave trade for 20 years. The third was Article 5, which prohibited any amendments to Article I, Section 9. The fourth was the Fugitive Slave Clause in Article IV, Section 2, which required that escaped slaves be returned to their owners.
Some of the framers of the Constitution had moral qualms about slavery. For example, Luther Martin of Maryland argued that the slave trade was "inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution" and "dishonorable to the American character". Gouverneur Morris called slavery "a nefarious institution" and "the curse of heaven".
The primary argument for including protections for slavery in the Constitution was economic self-interest. John Rutledge of South Carolina admitted that "interest alone is the governing principle with nations". Some also argued that a stronger Union of republican self-government was more important than immediately abolishing slavery, and that this stronger Union would eventually lead to the extinction of slavery.
No, the Constitution did not abolish slavery. It took a civil war and constitutional amendments, including the 13th Amendment, to abolish slavery in the United States.
![Civil War [Marvel Premier Collection]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81GCzQDerqL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
