Isabella Carter
The question of whether the framers of the US Constitution were racist is a highly debated topic. Critics argue that the three-fifths rule, which counted African Americans as three-fifths of a person, and the preservation of the slave trade in the document are evidence of the framers' racist beliefs. However, others claim that the framers were not racists, but rather a product of their time, and that they took steps to limit slavery and lay the foundation for its eventual abolition. The framers avoided using the word slave in the Constitution, indicating their embarrassment and desire to end the practice. While it is challenging to determine the framers' true intentions, the interpretation and implementation of the Constitution have had significant consequences for racial equality in the US.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Avoided using the words "slave" or "slavery" | Embarrassment and moral opposition to slavery |
| Three-Fifths Clause | African Americans counted as 3/5 of a person |
| Ban on Congress ending the slave trade for 20 years | Concessions to gain support for a strong central government |
| Fugitive Slave Clause | Allowed capture and transfer of escaped enslaved people across state lines |
| Slave Insurrection Clause | Allowed suppression of "riots or insurrections" |
| Lack of clarity around "equal protection" | Opened the door for systemic racism and Jim Crow laws |
| "We the People" | Excluded a majority of Americans |
| Failure to address Indigenous people | Allowed their repeated relocation and attempted genocide |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
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 agreement was regarding the inclusion of slaves in counting a state's total population. The count 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. This impasse was resolved by counting three-fifths of each state's slave population toward that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives. This effectively gave the Southern states more power in the House relative to the Northern states.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution:
> 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.
The three-fifths ratio was first proposed by James Madison in 1788, and it was ultimately adopted as a compromise between proposed compromises of one-half and three-fourths. The Framers of the Constitution believed that slavery was morally wrong and would eventually die out. They did not want the moral stain of slavery on the document, which is why they avoided using the words "slave" or "slavery" in the Constitution.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was repealed in 1868 by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provided that "representatives shall be apportioned... counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
Black Codes: Unconstitutional Conflict in US History
You may want to see also
Fugitive Slave Clause
The Fugitive Slave Clause, also known as the Slave Clause or the Fugitives From Labour Clause, was Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. The clause gave slaveholders the right to seize and reclaim enslaved people who had escaped to free states. 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 adopted at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Although James Wilson and Roger Sherman objected that this would oblige state executives to seize fugitive slaves at public expense, the provision was approved by the Convention unanimously without further debate. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 strengthened the enforcement provisions of the clause, and further amendments were made as part of the Compromise of 1850.
The broad language of the clause and its enforcement mechanisms enabled the kidnapping of free African Americans, who were then illegally enslaved. The case of Solomon Northup, a free man abducted in Washington, D.C. and enslaved in Louisiana for twelve years, highlighted how the clause enabled systemic abuse.
The Fugitive Slave Clause was largely nullified by the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in the United States. However, the Thirteenth Amendment did allow slavery to continue as a punishment for criminal acts.
Who Controls the Economy? Understanding Government's Role
You may want to see also
Slave Insurrection Clause
The Slave Insurrection Clause, also known as the Slave Trade Clause, is outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. This clause prohibited the federal government from limiting the importation of "persons" where it was allowed by existing state governments, for a period of 20 years after the Constitution took effect.
The Framers of the Constitution were embarrassed by the institution of slavery and believed it was morally wrong. They avoided using the words "slave" and "slavery" in the document, instead referring to slaves as "persons". The Slave Insurrection Clause is one of four clauses that indirectly addressed slavery and the slave trade.
The clause was a compromise between Southern states, where slavery was pivotal to the economy, and states that had already abolished slavery or were contemplating doing so. It was no longer constitutionally relevant after 1808, when the importation of slaves was prohibited.
The clause has been interpreted in different ways. Some see it as a means of preserving the slave trade and allowing the capture and transfer of escaped enslaved people. Frederick Douglass, however, argued that the clause was intended to lead to the abolition of slavery, and that the Framers' intentions were good. He interpreted the clause as a general statement that the chief executive has the power and duty to suppress all "riots or insurrections" in the interests of maintaining law and order.
The Constitution and Cruel Punishment: What's Allowed?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Conscious omission of the word 'slavery'
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 four to five of its provisions and indirectly protected the institution elsewhere in the document. The conscious omission of the word "slavery" from the Constitution by the Framers reflected their attempt to sidestep moral confrontation while preserving the institution. The Framers believed that slavery was morally wrong and would eventually die out, and they did not want a permanent moral stain on the document. They also wanted to avoid having the word "slavery" on the face of the great charter of liberty.
The Framers' conflicted stance towards slavery led them to deliberately avoid using direct language about the institution in the Constitution. While many Framers personally opposed slavery on moral grounds, they prioritized political unity over abolition, resulting in key compromises like the Three-Fifths Clause and the Fugitive Slave Clause that protected slaveholding interests. 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, states like South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union.
The specific clauses of the Constitution related to slavery were the Three-Fifths Clause, the ban on Congress ending the slave trade for twenty years, the fugitive slave clause, and the slave insurrections. The Three-Fifths Clause in Article I, Section 2, provided that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved black people in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state, giving the Southern states more power in the House and in the Electoral College. The Slave Trade Clause in Article I, Section 9, prohibited Congress from banning the importation of slaves until 1808, and Article 5 prohibited this from being amended. The Fugitive Slave Clause in Article 4, Section 2, required that an escaped slave be returned to their owner.
The Framers' conscious omission of the word "slavery" from the Constitution reflects their attempt to navigate the complex political landscape of the time while also grappling with their own moral qualms about the institution. While they believed that slavery was wrong and hoped for its eventual extinction, they prioritized unity and compromise, which ultimately led to the protection and institutionalization of slavery in the young nation.
Attempts to Bend the Constitution's Rules
You may want to see also
The Constitution's legacy of slavery
The US Constitution has been described as a document with a "lasting legacy of slavery". The Three-Fifths Clause in Article I, Section 2, 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 clause has been interpreted as suggesting that slaves were considered less than fully human, and has been used to indict the Constitution as a pro-slavery document.
The Constitution also included a ban on Congress ending the slave trade for 20 years, the fugitive slave clause, and the slave insurrection clause. The framers of the Constitution consciously avoided using the words "slave" or "slavery", referring instead to “persons". They believed slavery was morally wrong and would eventually die out, and they did not want the permanent moral stain on the document.
However, some argue that the Constitution's power to prohibit the slave trade laid "the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country". 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, some states would refuse to join the Union.
The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people, and granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States". However, the lack of clarity around concepts such as "equal protection" left interpretation up to the states, allowing for the development of Jim Crow laws and other forms of systemic racism.
The legacy of slavery and its impact on the Constitution continue to shape discussions and debates around race and equality in the United States.
Wine Glass Ounces: How Much Wine is Too Much?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The framers of the Constitution were products of their time and held racist beliefs common to many in the 18th century. However, they also had to reconcile their desire for a union with the institution of slavery. While some of the Founding Fathers criticized slavery, others owned slaves and benefited from the system. The Constitution only obliquely refers to slavery and never uses the words "slave" or "slavery." The framers believed slavery was morally wrong and would eventually die out, and they did not want that permanent moral stain on the document.
The Three-Fifths Clause in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution 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 clause has been used to argue that the Constitution is a pro-slavery document. Additionally, the framers' lack of clarity around concepts like "equal protection" left interpretation up to the states, which led to the development of Jim Crow laws and segregation in the South.
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 were convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, some states would refuse to join the Union. However, they also included clauses that they hoped would lead to slavery's ultimate extinction, such as the Slave Insurrection Clause in Article I, Section 8, which Frederick Douglass argued gave the chief executive the power to suppress slave insurrections and maintain law and order.
The racist policies and lack of clarity in the Constitution have had a lasting impact on the country. The interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which was supposed to extend liberties and rights to formerly enslaved people, was narrowed by a conservative Supreme Court, limiting its effectiveness in addressing racial inequality. Additionally, the Constitution's failure to explicitly address issues like education and segregation left room for the development of Jim Crow laws and other racist policies in the post-Reconstruction era.
