Constitution Authors' Views On Slavery

The authors of the US Constitution had differing views on slavery. While some authors, such as George Mason, believed that slavery brought down the judgment of heaven on a country, others, such as John Rutledge of South Carolina, believed that religion and humanity have nothing to do with this question. Many of the authors harbored moral qualms about slavery, but they were also convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, states like South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union. This led to a compromise where the Constitution only obliquely referred to slavery and never used the words slave or slavery. The Constitution included several clauses that implicitly protected slavery, such as the Three-Fifths Clause and the Fugitive Slave Clause. The 13th Amendment, passed in 1865, eventually abolished slavery in the United States.

Explore related products

View of the Constitution of the United States: With Selected Writings

$14.5 $14.5

Class Conflict, Slavery, and the United States Constitution

$19.77 $28

Lincoln and the Constitution (Concise Lincoln Library)

$22.56 $24.95

A View of the Action of the Federal Government, in Behalf of Slavery

$8.9 $16.45

The Crooked Path to Abolition: Abraham Lincoln and the Antislavery Constitution

$17.95 $17.05

A Comparative View of the Constitutions of Great Britain and the United States of America

$18.95

The authors' conflicted stance on slavery

The authors of the US Constitution had a conflicted stance on slavery. On the one hand, many of the framers harbored moral qualms about slavery, and some, including Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, became members of anti-slavery societies. They believed that slavery was morally wrong and would eventually die out. The authors consciously avoided using the word "slave" in the Constitution, recognising that it would sully the document.

However, the framers also believed that concessions on slavery were necessary to gain the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. They were convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, southern states like South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union. As a result, the Constitution included several clauses that implicitly protected slavery. For example, the Three-Fifths Clause, which counted three-fifths of a state's slave population when apportioning representation, gave the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College. The Constitution also prohibited federal interference with the international slave trade for at least 20 years and required states to return fugitive slaves, ensuring that slavery remained a national issue.

The authors' economic reliance on slavery

The authors of the US Constitution had conflicting views on slavery. Many of them, including George Mason, Gouverneur Morris, and John Adams, believed that slavery was morally wrong and would eventually die out. However, they also recognised the economic and political realities of slavery, especially in the South, and prioritised political unity over immediate abolition.

The Southern economy was completely dependent on slavery. Many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention owned slaves, and they believed that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, Southern states like South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union. This belief led to key compromises in the Constitution, such as the Three-Fifths Clause and the Fugitive Slave Clause, which protected slaveholding interests.

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 states to return fugitive slaves, ensuring that slavery remained a national issue embedded in American governance.

The authors of the Constitution also avoided using direct language about slavery, referring to slaves as "persons held to Service or Labour" instead of using the word "slave." They believed that slavery was a moral stain on the document and wanted to avoid confronting the issue directly. This deliberate avoidance contributed to the entrenchment of slavery and the moral and legal crisis that would lead to the Civil War.

In conclusion, the authors of the Constitution recognised the economic reliance of the South on slavery and made concessions to protect slaveholding interests. Their compromises and avoidance of direct language on slavery contributed to the entrenchment of the institution and the future conflict over its abolition.

The authors' views on the morality of slavery

The authors of the US Constitution had differing views on the morality of slavery. Many of the authors, or framers, of the Constitution had moral qualms about slavery. For instance, John Adams wrote, "Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States…I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in … abhorrence". Similarly, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote a scathing attack on slavery, stating, "The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other". Gouverneur Morris also called slavery a “nefarious institution” and the “curse of heaven”. Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, both framers of the Constitution, became members of anti-slavery societies.

However, the Constitution did not include the word "slave" or "slavery", as the framers consciously avoided the term, recognising that it would sully the document. The framers believed that slavery was morally wrong and would die out, and they did not want a permanent moral stain on the document. The framers' conflicted stance toward slavery led them to deliberately avoid using direct language about the institution in the Constitution. Some framers, such as George Washington and James Madison, owned a large number of slaves and were reluctant to ban slavery because they derived profit from their slaves’ free labor. The southern economy's reliance on slavery also made it politically impossible for the framers to abolish the institution.

The Constitution included several clauses that protected slavery, including the Three-Fifths Clause, the ban on Congress ending the slave trade for twenty years, the fugitive slave clause, and the slave insurrections. The authors of the Constitution believed that concessions on slavery were the price for the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. They were convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, southern states such as South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union.

Explore related products

Seeds of Empire: Cotton, Slavery, and the Transformation of the Texas Borderlands, 1800-1850 (The David J. Weber Series in the New Borderlands History)

$9.99 $19.99

Complete Works: The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, Natural Law…

$1.99

Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Legal Legends Series)

$6.99 $29.99

A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States V2: Its Causes, Character, Conduct and Results (1870)

$72.95

The Original Meaning and Continuing Relevance of the Thirteenth Amendment (Constitutional Discourse)

$9 $9

Lincoln and the American Founding (Concise Lincoln Library)

$23.76 $24.95

The authors' avoidance of the word 'slavery'

The authors of the US Constitution consciously avoided using the word "slavery" in the document. While the Constitution included several clauses that protected and perpetuated slavery, the word "slave" was notably absent from its text. This avoidance was intentional, as the authors recognised that the inclusion of the word would sully the document and leave a permanent moral stain.

The Framers of the Constitution believed that slavery was morally wrong and hoped that it would eventually die out. They were aware that slavery contradicted the natural rights of all humans and the promise of equality in the Declaration of Independence. Many Framers, including some slaveholders, harboured moral qualms about slavery. For example, George Mason, a Virginia delegate who owned hundreds of slaves, spoke out against slavery, stating that it brought down "the judgment of heaven on a country". Similarly, Luther Martin of Maryland, a slaveholder, argued that the slave trade was inconsistent with America's republican ideals and should be subject to federal regulation.

Despite their misgivings, the Framers made concessions on slavery to gain the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. They believed that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, southern states like South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union. This compromise, however, laid the foundation for future conflicts. Madison, in his notes, acknowledged the growing divide between the northern and southern states, with slavery and its consequences forming the line of discrimination.

The Constitution included four clauses that indirectly addressed slavery: the Three-Fifths Clause, the ban on Congress ending the slave trade for twenty years, the Fugitive Slave Clause, and the Slave Insurrection Clause. These clauses provided protections for slavery and ensured southern states' cooperation. The Framers' avoidance of explicit references to slavery in the Constitution reflected their conflicted stance on the issue and their desire to avoid pointed conflict during the drafting process.

The question of whether the Constitution was pro-slavery or anti-slavery remains a subject of debate. While some scholars portray the Founders as racists who sought to protect slavery, others argue that the Constitution created a central government powerful enough to eventually abolish the institution. Frederick Douglass, a former slave, argued that the Constitution's clauses looked to the abolition of slavery rather than its perpetuity, reflecting the Founders' good intentions.

The authors' views on slavery's future

The authors of the US Constitution had differing views on slavery's future. Many of the framers had moral qualms about slavery and some, including Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, became members of anti-slavery societies. They believed that slavery was morally wrong and would eventually die out. However, they also recognised that the southern economy was dependent on slavery, and that the southern states would refuse to join the Union if the Constitution restricted the slave trade.

The framers' conflicted stance towards slavery led them to deliberately avoid using direct language about the institution in the Constitution. They avoided the word "slave" and instead referred to slaves as "persons". The Constitution implicitly protected slavery by prohibiting federal interference with the international slave trade for at least 20 years and requiring states to return fugitive slaves. These measures ensured that slavery remained a national issue, embedding it deeper into the fabric of American governance.

The specific clauses of the Constitution related to slavery were the Three-Fifths Clause, the ban on Congress ending the slave trade for 20 years, the fugitive slave clause, and the slave insurrections. The framers consciously avoided mentioning slavery directly in these clauses, recognising that it would sully the document.

The authors of the Constitution knew that slavery violated the "self-evident truth" of the Declaration of Independence and the promise of equality. However, they were not active enough in addressing this issue, and their concessions on slavery laid the foundation for future conflict.

In summary, the authors of the Constitution had varying views on slavery's future. While some believed that slavery was morally wrong and would eventually die out, others recognised the economic dependence of the South on slavery and the need to protect the institution. Their compromised stance led to a document that implicitly protected slavery and contributed to future conflict over the issue.

Frequently asked questions