Omar Bennett
The role of slavery in the US Constitution is a highly contested topic. The Constitution, drafted in 1787, did not contain the words slave or slavery but included several clauses that directly or indirectly addressed the institution of slavery. The Three-Fifths Clause, the Fugitive Slave Clause, and the Slave Trade Clause are some of the most notable examples of how the Constitution dealt with slavery. The framers of the Constitution held conflicting views on slavery, with some personally opposing it on moral grounds, while others owned slaves themselves. They prioritized political unity and compromise, which led to the protection of slaveholding interests and the avoidance of direct language about slavery in the document. The Constitution's impact on slavery is a subject of ongoing debate, with some arguing it strengthened slavery, while others contend it laid the foundation for its eventual abolition.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| The word "slave" or "slavery" was not mentioned in the Constitution | The framers consciously avoided using the word "slave" or "slavery" in the Constitution, recognising that it would sully the document. Instead, they used euphemisms like "Person held to Service or Labour" to refer to slaves. |
| Concessions on slavery | 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, southern states like South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union. |
| Compromise between Northern and Southern states | The framers' conflicted stance towards slavery reflected a compromise between the Northern and Southern states, with the former increasingly opposing the practice on moral grounds and the latter relying heavily on slave labour. |
| Specific clauses related to slavery | The Three-Fifths Clause, the ban on Congress ending the slave trade for twenty years (Slave Trade Clause), the Fugitive Slave Clause, and the slave insurrections. |
| Abolitionist views | Abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison and Thurgood Marshall considered the Constitution a pro-slavery document, with the former burning it in 1854 and calling it "a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell". |
| Anti-slavery views of the framers | Many of the framers, including James Madison, George Mason, and Gouverneur Morris, personally opposed slavery on moral grounds and believed it contradicted the natural rights of all Americans. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Three-Fifths Clause
The Three-Fifths Compromise was reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate centred on whether slaves should be included in a state's total population and, if so, how they should be counted. The Southern states, which had large slave populations, wanted their entire slave population to be counted towards their total population. This would give them more representation in the House of Representatives and more electoral votes. On the other hand, the Northern states, which had fewer slaves, wanted to exclude slaves from the population count since they had no voting rights.
The compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney. It stated that three-fifths of each state's slave population would be counted towards the state's total population. This gave the Southern states more power in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College, but it also meant that free states had more political power than slave states.
Constitution Success: Unity, Adaptability, and Balance
You may want to see also
Slave Trade Clause
The Slave Trade Clause, also known as the Importation of Persons Clause, is outlined in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. It states that Congress could not prohibit the "importation" of persons prior to 1808. This clause was a compromise between Northern and Southern states, reflecting the tension between the practice of slavery and the notion of liberty and equality.
At the time of drafting the Constitution in 1787, slavery was a significant part of the economy and society in the United States, particularly in the South, where most slaves were forced to work in agriculture. Many of the framers of the Constitution owned slaves, and there was a belief that slavery would eventually die out, either naturally or due to industrialization. However, this assumption changed with the invention of the modern cotton gin in 1793, which boosted the Southern plantations' economy.
The Slave Trade Clause was an attempt to delay addressing the issue of slavery directly. The framers consciously avoided using the words "slave" or "slavery" in the Constitution, instead referring to slaves as “persons." They prioritized political unity and avoided moral confrontation, which led to key compromises like the Slave Trade Clause. This clause allowed the importation of slaves to continue for 20 years after the adoption of the Constitution.
In 1800, an act of Congress made it illegal for Americans to engage in the international slave trade, and authorized the seizure of slave ships. Finally, in 1808, the "Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves" came into effect, imposing heavy penalties on international traders. However, it did not end slavery or the domestic sale and trade of slaves within the United States.
US Budget Breakdown: Where Does the Money Go?
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, is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. The clause requires a "person held to Service or Labour" in one state, who escapes to another state, to be returned to their master in the state from which they fled. The 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, has since nullified the clause.
The Fugitive Slave Clause states:
> 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 words "slave" and "slavery" are not used in this clause, similar to other references in the Constitution dealing with slavery. The framers consciously avoided using the word "slave", recognising that it would sully the document. They also believed that slavery was morally wrong and would eventually die out, and they did not want a moral stain on the document. Instead, the framers used euphemisms like "Person held to Service or Labour".
The Fugitive Slave Clause was unanimously approved by the Convention without further debate. However, James Wilson and Roger Sherman objected that this would oblige the executive of the state to seize fugitive slaves at public expense. The clause was also controversial because it enabled the kidnapping of free African Americans, who were then illegally enslaved. For example, Solomon Northup, a free man, was abducted in Washington, D.C., and enslaved in Louisiana for twelve years. This highlighted how the clause enabled systemic abuse.
The Fugitive Slave Clause was also important to South Carolina, which seceded from the Union in 1860. Its secession convention issued a declaration emphasising the importance of the clause and accusing Northern states of violating it. An attempt to repeal the clause in 1864, during the Civil War, failed.
Frederick Douglass' View of the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$29.99 $37.99
Framers' conflicted stance
The framers of the US Constitution held a conflicted stance on slavery, which was a major component of the country's economy and society at the time. While many of them opposed slavery on moral grounds, they prioritised political unity and avoided direct language about the institution, reflecting their attempt to sidestep moral confrontation while preserving slavery. This resulted in key compromises like the Three-Fifths Clause and the Fugitive Slave Clause, which protected slaveholding interests.
The framers consciously avoided using the word "slave" or "slavery" in the Constitution, instead referring to slaves as "persons held to Service or Labour". They believed that slavery was morally wrong and would eventually die out, and they did not want the permanent moral stain of slavery on the document. The framers also wanted to avoid suggesting that slavery was recognised under federal law, instead existing only as a result of state laws.
The Three-Fifths Clause, also known as the "Importation of Persons Clause", counted three-fifths of each state's slave population towards the total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives. This gave Southern states with large slave populations more power in the House and the Electoral College. The framers believed that concessions on slavery were necessary to gain the support of southern delegates for a strong central government.
The Fugitive Slave Clause, on the other hand, granted the owner of a person held to service or labour the right to seize and repossess them in another state. This clause reflected the framers' conflicted stance, as they wanted to protect the rights of slave owners while also avoiding explicit references to slavery.
The framers' conflicted stance on slavery led to intense debates during the Constitutional Convention. For example, Luther Martin of Maryland, a slaveholder himself, 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 forcefully responded that religion and humanity had nothing to do with the question, and that unless the regulation of the slave trade was left to the states, the southernmost states would not join the Union.
In conclusion, the framers of the US Constitution held a conflicted stance on slavery, which resulted in key compromises and euphemistic language in the document. While they personally opposed slavery, they prioritised political unity and avoided direct confrontation with the institution, reflecting their complex approach to the issue.
Conflict and Compromise: Meiji Constitution
You may want to see also
Abolitionist criticism
The United States Constitution, drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1789, has been criticised by abolitionists for its role in perpetuating slavery. While the document does not contain the words "slave" or "slavery", it included several clauses that indirectly protected the institution of slavery.
The Three-Fifths Clause, for example, counted 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 Southern states, where most slaves were forced to work in agriculture, greater representation in the House and the Electoral College. The Fugitive Slave Clause and the ban on Congress ending the slave trade for twenty years further protected slaveholding interests. The framers' conflicted stance towards slavery led them to deliberately avoid using direct language about the institution, instead using euphemisms like "Person held to Service or Labour".
The Constitution's role in protecting slavery has been a controversial topic, with some arguing that it was a pro-slavery document that strengthened the institution. Abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, who publicly burned copies of the Constitution in 1854, claimed that it was "a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell". Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to sit on the Supreme Court, also criticised the Constitution, stating that it was "defective from the start" as it left out a majority of Americans with the phrase "We the People".
On the other hand, some argue that the Constitution created a central government powerful enough to eventually abolish slavery. The Founding Fathers, including James Madison and George Mason, criticised slavery and believed it contradicted the natural rights of all Americans. They prioritised political unity over immediate abolition, resulting in key compromises that protected slaveholding interests.
The abolitionist movement in the United States, active from the colonial era until the American Civil War, played a significant role in ending slavery. Black and white abolitionists worked together, utilising public lectures, publications, civil disobedience, and boycotts of products made with slave labour. Their efforts brought attention to slavery and made it difficult to ignore, contributing to the eventual abolition of slavery through the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865.
Wisconsin's Constitution: Same-Sex Marriage Ban Still Valid?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, the Constitution did not use the words "slavery" or "slave". The framers consciously avoided using direct language about slavery in the Constitution. They used euphemisms like "Person held to Service or Labour" and "Importation of Persons Clause".
The framers believed that slavery was morally wrong and would die out. They did not want a permanent moral stain on the document. They also did not want to suggest that slavery was recognised under federal law.
The clauses in the Constitution that 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 Trade Clause.
This is a matter of debate. While some argue that the Constitution was pro-slavery, others claim that it created a central government powerful enough to eventually abolish slavery.
