Slavery's Constitutional Crisis: America's Original Sin

The US Constitution, which was ratified in 1787, has been criticised for its protection of slavery. The document, which was created by we the people, includes several clauses that implicitly recognise and protect slavery, such as the Three-Fifths Clause, the Importation Clause, the Fugitive Slave Clause, and the slave insurrection clause. These clauses, which were included to gain the support of southern delegates, have been interpreted as giving greater power to the southern states and contradicting the Constitution's core values of justice, liberty, and equality. The contradiction between the ideals of the Constitution and the protection of slavery has been described as the biggest flaw of the document, leading to a Civil War and the eventual ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in the US in 1865.

Explore related products

Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification

$17.1 $19.99

Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge Studies on the American Constitution)

$36.61 $60

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

Class Conflict, Slavery, and the United States Constitution

$19.77 $28

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

$32.71 $59.99

The Three-Fifths Clause

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a result of the controversy over the Atlantic slave trade during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The slaveholding states wanted their entire population, including slaves, to be counted to determine the number of Representatives they could elect and send to Congress. On the other hand, the free states wanted to exclude the counting of slave populations, as slaves had no voting rights. The compromise was struck to resolve this dispute, and it effectively gave the Southern states more power in the House of Representatives relative to the Northern states.

The Three-Fifths Compromise had significant implications for representation and taxation. It gave the slaveholding states the right to count three-fifths of their enslaved population when determining the number of representatives in Congress, leading to their overrepresentation in national politics. However, the same ratio was used to determine the federal tax contribution required of each state, increasing the direct federal tax burden on slaveholding states.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was repealed by the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868 after the Civil War. The amendment explicitly stated that representatives shall be apportioned by counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding untaxed Indigenous people. This amendment superseded the previous compromise and ensured that representation was based on the total population, regardless of slavery status.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a contentious issue that highlighted the contradiction between the ideals of liberty and equality in the Constitution and the protection of slavery. It was a compromise that attempted to balance the interests of the free and slave states, but it ultimately perpetuated racial inequality and contributed to the tensions between the North and the South.

Fugitive Slave Clause

The Fugitive Slave Clause, also known as the Slave Clause or the Fugitives From Labour Clause, was Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. It required that any "person held to service or labour" (usually a slave, apprentice, or indentured servant) who fled to another state, must be returned to their master in the state from which they escaped.

The clause was created as part of a compromise. In exchange for a 20-year ban on any restrictions on the Atlantic slave trade, southern delegates agreed to remove a clause restricting the national government's power. The Fugitive Slave Clause was unanimously approved by the convention without further debate, despite objections from James Wilson and Roger Sherman, who argued that it would force states to seize fugitive slaves at public expense.

The specific wording of the clause was carefully chosen to avoid any direct mention of the word "slave" or "slavery". This was a conscious decision by the framers, who recognised that the inclusion of such words would sully the document. The exact wording of the clause was:

> "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 was effectively nullified by the Thirteenth Amendment's abolition of slavery. However, it took a Civil War and constitutional amendments to fully eliminate slavery and its racial inequalities, which persisted long after the Fugitive Slave Clause became moot.

The Constitution's failure to mention equality

The US Constitution, despite its promises of justice and liberty, failed to mention equality, a value that is considered one of its core values. This omission is not surprising given the Constitution's protection and institutionalization of slavery, which only served to protect the rights of white men. The Constitution's authors left out a distinction between person and property, ultimately protecting slavery, an oppressive institution that contradicted the natural rights of all humans.

The Constitution did not explicitly use the words "slave" or "slavery" but included several provisions that implicitly referred to unfree persons. The Three-Fifths Compromise, also known as the Three-Fifths Clause, is a notable example. This clause counted three-fifths of a state's slave population ("other persons") when apportioning representation, giving extra representation to Southern states in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The Fugitive Slave Clause, or the "fugitive slave clause," required the return of runaway slaves to their owners. These clauses, along with the ban on Congress ending the slave trade for 20 years and the slave insurrection clause, protected slavery and ensured its endurance.

The framers of the Constitution consciously avoided using the word "slave" or directly addressing slavery, recognizing that it would tarnish the document. They believed that slavery was morally wrong and hoped that it would eventually end, not wanting to permanently stain the Constitution with its presence. However, their failure to address slavery directly and their compromise on the issue left seeds for future conflict. The Constitution's protection of slavery and its failure to mention equality contradicted the ideals of fairness, justice, and individual rights that it espoused.

The consequences of slavery and the racial inequalities it created persisted even after its abolition with the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868 after the Civil War, added the assurance of equal protection, but racial inequalities continued to exist. The Constitution's failure to address equality and its protection of slavery had lasting impacts, shaping the course of American history and contributing to ongoing struggles for equal rights.

In conclusion, the Constitution's omission of equality and its protection of slavery reveal a paradox. While the framers aimed to establish justice and liberty, their compromise with slavery contradicted these ideals and denied equal rights to a subset of people, leading to enduring racial inequalities and a flawed foundation for the nation.

Explore related products

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

$29.99 $37.99

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

The constitution of the American Anti-Slavery Society : with the Declaration of the National Anti-Slavery Convention at Philadelphia, December, 1833 ... Committee of the society, in September, 1835.

$9.99

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

$29.99

The Constitution a pro-slavery compact; (v.11)

$12 $12

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

$56.51 $27.95

The contradiction between the Constitution's ideals and its protection of slavery

The US Constitution, which came into force in 1789, was a document that enshrined the values of liberty and justice. It was the product of the Enlightenment, a movement that emphasised the natural rights of all individuals. The Constitution's preamble states that it exists to "ensure justice" and "protect liberty".

However, the Constitution also protected slavery, an institution that directly contradicted these values. The "three-fifths clause" in Article 1, Section 2, stated that for representation in Congress, enslaved black people would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants. This gave the Southern states, where slavery was prevalent, greater representation in the House of Representatives and more votes in the Electoral College. The Constitution also included the "fugitive slave clause" in Article 4, Section 2, which required that escaped slaves be returned to their owners.

The framers of the Constitution were aware of this contradiction. Many of them owned slaves, but they also believed that slavery was morally wrong and would eventually die out. They consciously avoided using the words "slave" or "slavery" in the document. Instead, they referred to enslaved people as "other persons". James Madison, often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution", criticised slavery during the Constitutional Convention, stating that it was "the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man".

The inclusion of these pro-slavery clauses was a compromise made to gain the support of Southern delegates, who threatened to walk out of the Constitutional Convention if slavery was threatened. The framers believed that a strong central government was more important than immediately abolishing slavery. As a result, the Constitution protected the rights and liberties of white men while allowing the Southern states to continue the practice of slavery and the Northern states to gradually abolish it.

It took a Civil War and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 to finally abolish slavery in the United States. The contradiction between the Constitution's ideals and its protection of slavery remains a controversial topic in American history.

The possibility of separate free and slave confederacies

The prevailing wisdom of the late 18th century was that republics could not succeed over large territories. The diverse interests of citizens in large territories could not be adequately represented, and this was certainly the case in the United States, where the 13 states had different cultures, economies, and climates. This led to sporadic proposals for the division of the United States into multiple separate confederacies. Federalists suggested that separate confederacies might be an alternative if attempts to strengthen the central government failed.

The controversy over the Atlantic slave trade was a significant point of contention during the drafting of the Constitution. Southern delegates agreed to a 20-year ban on any restrictions on the slave trade in exchange for removing a clause restricting the national government's power to enact laws requiring goods to be shipped on American vessels. The Constitution also included the Three-Fifths Clause, which counted three-fifths of a state's slave population when apportioning representation, giving the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. Additionally, the fugitive slave clause required the return of runaway slaves to their owners.

The Framers of the Constitution believed that concessions on slavery were necessary to gain the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. They recognized that slavery was morally wrong and hoped that the Union they created would lead to slavery's ultimate extinction. However, by sidestepping the issue, they laid the seeds for future conflict. The Constitution's protection of slavery is considered by many to be its "biggest flaw."

Frequently asked questions