Eleanor Finch
The United States Constitution has been a subject of debate since its inception, with critics arguing that it is a racist document that perpetuates slavery and others claiming that it provided the framework for a powerful central government capable of abolishing the institution. The Constitution's ambiguous language and concessions to slavery, such as the Three-Fifths Clause, have been interpreted as evidence of its racist underpinnings. However, others point to the document's dynamic nature and its role in shaping the country's political, social, and cultural evolution as reasons to celebrate it. The question of whether the Constitution is a racist document remains a controversial and complex topic that continues to be discussed and re-evaluated.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| The Constitution is a dynamic document that has been used to justify deplorable practices | The Constitution was used to justify slavery |
| The Constitution was created to strengthen slavery | The three-fifths clause gave the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College |
| The Constitution was created to strengthen the central government | The framers believed that concessions on slavery were the price for the support of southern delegates |
| The Constitution does not include all Americans | The phrase "We the People" does not include slaves |
| The Constitution does not include the words "slave" or "slavery" | The framers consciously avoided the words "slave" and "slavery" |
| The Constitution was created to protect the slave trade | The Constitution protected the Atlantic slave trade for 20 years |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
What You'll Learn
The Constitution and slavery
The Constitution of the United States is a dynamic document that has inspired debate since its inception. The question of whether it is a racist or pro-slavery document is a complex and controversial one.
On the one hand, the Constitution never explicitly mentions "slavery" or "slave", indicating an attempt to sidestep the issue. The framers consciously avoided these words, recognising that they would sully the document. However, the Constitution did provide important protections for slavery. The Three-Fifths Clause, for example, 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. This indicates that while the framers may have had moral qualms about slavery, they believed that concessions on slavery were necessary to gain the support of southern delegates for a strong central government.
During the Constitutional Convention, there were some delegates who objected to slavery. Luther Martin of Maryland, for instance, argued that the slave trade should be subject to federal regulation and was inconsistent with America's republican ideals. Similarly, George Mason of Virginia, a slaveholder himself, spoke out against slavery. On the other hand, John Rutledge of South Carolina insisted that religion and humanity had nothing to do with the question of the slave trade and that unless regulation was left to the states, the southernmost states would not join the Union.
The Constitution, therefore, reflected the compromise that was necessary to form a unified nation. By avoiding the explicit mention of slavery while providing protections for it, the framers laid the foundation for future conflict. As Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to sit on the Supreme Court, said on the 200th anniversary of the ratification of the Constitution, the document was "defective from the start" as it left out a majority of Americans when it wrote "We the People".
In conclusion, while the Constitution can be criticised for its role in protecting and perpetuating slavery, it also created a central government powerful enough to eventually abolish the institution. The question of whether it is a racist or pro-slavery document is a complex one that continues to provoke controversy.
Understanding Search Incident to Arrest: Constitutional Limits
You may want to see also
Thurgood Marshall's view
Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American justice on the US Supreme Court, believed that the US Constitution was "defective from the start". On the 200th anniversary of the ratification of the US Constitution, he pointed out that the framers had excluded a majority of Americans when they wrote the phrase, "We the People".
Marshall acknowledged that some members of the Constitutional Convention voiced "eloquent objections" to slavery. However, he argued that they ultimately "consented to a document which laid a foundation for the tragic events which were to follow". Notably, Marshall highlighted the absence of the word "slave" in the Constitution, recognising that the framers consciously avoided it to maintain the document's integrity. Nevertheless, he emphasised that slavery received significant protections within the Constitution, such as the notorious three-fifths clause, which gave the South additional representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.
Marshall's views were shaped by his personal experiences growing up in a world of pervasive racial segregation, where lynching was common and the assumed inferiority of Black people was widespread. Despite facing these challenges, Marshall had the vision and courage to strive for a more equitable world. He believed that the Constitution's promise of equality remained unfulfilled during his time on the Supreme Court, indicating that his work was never truly finished.
Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution was influenced by Justices such as Louis Brandeis, Earl Warren, and William Brennan. He believed that their interpretations replaced "cramped formalism with decency". Marshall's own interpretation of the Constitution was guided by his commitment to fairness, concern for the outcast, and the understanding that law and justice are not always synonymous.
The Constitution of South Africa: A Comprehensive Chapter Guide
You may want to see also
Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison's view
Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison believed the US Constitution to be a pro-slavery document. In 1854, he burned the document and referred to it as "a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell". Garrison's belief in individual sovereignty and his critique of coercive authority have been recognised as a precursor to certain strands of modern libertarian thought.
Garrison's views on the Constitution were shaped by his abolitionist beliefs. He joined the anti-slavery movement at the age of 25 and founded the widely-read anti-slavery newspaper, The Liberator, in 1831. He supported the rights of women and became a prominent voice for the women's suffrage movement in the 1870s.
Garrison's opposition to the Constitution stemmed from his belief that the document strengthened slavery and made the American government corrupt and tyrannical. He promoted "no-governmentism", or anarchism, and rejected the inherent validity of the American government due to its engagement in war, imperialism, and slavery.
Garrison's views on the Constitution were not universally accepted, even among abolitionists. His insistence that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document led to a split in abolitionist ranks in 1840. Some abolitionists disagreed with Garrison's opposition to political activity and believed that political means could be used to abolish slavery. Despite this controversy, Garrison remained steadfast in his beliefs and continued to advocate for the abolition of slavery.
Garrison's views on the Constitution were shaped not only by his abolitionist beliefs but also by his commitment to moral persuasion. He emphasised the need for moral persuasion of the public mind before equality between the races could be achieved. This belief in the importance of moral persuasion reflected his broader commitment to Christian pacifism and his initial opposition to violence as a principle.
Who Was George Washington to the Framers?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The three-fifths clause
The Three-Fifths Compromise, also known as the Constitutional Compromise of 1787, was an agreement reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. This compromise was over the inclusion of slaves in a state's total population, which would determine the number of seats in the House of Representatives, the number of electoral votes each state would be allocated, and how much money the states would pay in taxes.
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, 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 compromise that counted three-fifths of each state's slave population toward that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives. This gave the Southern states more power in the House relative to the Northern states and resulted in a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which stated that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons." It is important to note that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" appears in this clause or anywhere in the unamended Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution consciously avoided using the words "slave" and "slavery" as they crafted the document, recognizing that it would sully the document. However, slavery received important protections in the Constitution, and the Three-Fifths Compromise gave the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College.
In 1868, Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment superseded Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and explicitly repealed the Three-Fifths Compromise. It provided that "representatives shall be apportioned ... counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
Who Really Wrote the US Constitution Preamble?
You may want to see also
The framers' beliefs
The framers of the US Constitution had differing beliefs about slavery. Many of them harbored moral qualms about slavery, with some, including Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, becoming members of anti-slavery societies. On August 21, 1787, a debate broke out over a South Carolina proposal to prohibit the federal government from regulating the Atlantic slave trade. Luther Martin of Maryland, a slaveholder, argued that the slave trade should be subject to federal regulation and was inconsistent with America's republican ideals. On the other hand, John Rutledge of South Carolina insisted that religion and humanity had nothing to do with the question and that unless regulation of the slave trade was left to the states, the southernmost states would not join the Union.
The framers 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, states like South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union. By avoiding the issue of slavery, the framers sowed the seeds for future conflict. Madison wrote: "It seems now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lies not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination."
The framers consciously avoided using the words "slave" and "slavery" in the Constitution, recognizing that it would tarnish the document. Instead, they included provisions like 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. They also included the fugitive slave clause and a twenty-year protection of the Atlantic slave trade. These provisions dealt with the slavery question without directly addressing it, and the issue remained highly controversial.
While the framers may have had differing personal beliefs about slavery, their decision to compromise on the issue in the Constitution had significant consequences. By avoiding direct confrontation and making concessions, they laid the foundation for future conflict and perpetuated the institution of slavery, even as they created a central government that would eventually have the power to abolish it.
The Treaty of Versailles: A Constitutional Conundrum
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The US Constitution is a dynamic document that has been used to justify deplorable practices, including racism. The question of whether the Constitution is a racist document is controversial, as it is a product of its time and was created to serve the interests of those in power.
The US Constitution has been interpreted to protect slavery and discriminate against Black Americans. For example, the Three-Fifths Clause gave Southern states extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College based on their slave population. The framers of the Constitution consciously avoided using the words "slave" and "slavery" and instead used ambiguous words to conceal their support for the institution of slavery.
While the US Constitution may have temporarily strengthened slavery, it also created a central government powerful enough to eventually abolish the institution. The Constitution is a living document that has been interpreted and re-interpreted over time to correct its racist practices and bring about social change.
