Constitution's Stance On Slavery: A Historical Perspective

The United States Constitution did not expressly mention slavery or slaves, but it did include provisions that implicitly recognised the institution of slavery. The Constitution's relationship with slavery is a complex and contentious issue that has been debated for centuries. While some argue that the Constitution took a pro-slavery stance by including clauses like the Three-Fifths Compromise, others contend that it laid the foundation for the eventual abolition of slavery. The absence of explicit language on slavery in the Constitution has left room for varying interpretations and has had lasting consequences on the nation's history and laws.

Explore related products

Slavery: A World History

$26.99

How the Word Is Passed: A Reckoning with the History of Slavery Across America

$8.99 $21.99

American Slavery: 1619-1877 (10th Anniversary Edition)

$20

History of the Slave Trade: The Origins of the Slave Trade and Its Impacts Throughout History and the Present Day (Fox Chapel Publishing) Slavery in America and the Fight for Freedom (Visual History)

$19.99

The SLAVE TRADE: THE STORY OF THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE: 1440 - 1870

$16.99 $30

A Brief History of Slavery

$6.99 $13.95

The Three-Fifths Compromise

Slaveholding states wanted their entire population to be counted to determine the number of Representatives those states could elect and send to Congress. Free states, on the other hand, wanted to exclude the counting of slave populations in slave states, since those slaves had no voting rights. A compromise was struck to resolve this impasse. The compromise counted three-fifths of each state's slave population toward that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives, effectively giving the Southern states more power in the House relative to the Northern states.

The three-fifths ratio was proposed by James Madison, who explained his reasoning in Federalist No. 54, "The Apportionment of Members Among the States" (February 12, 1778). Madison wrote, "We subscribe to the doctrine," might one of our Southern brethren observe, "that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation more immediately to property, and we join in the application of this distinction to the case of our slaves. But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons."

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. It states that a "Person held to Service or Labour" who escapes to another state must be returned to their master in the state they originally escaped from. The clause does not use the words "slave" or "slavery", but it does give slaveholders the right to reclaim their slaves who have escaped to free states. This was a compromise between the Northern and Southern states, as slavery was outlawed in the North but a way of life in the South.

The Fugitive Slave Clause was enacted at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and remained in effect until the abolition of slavery under the Thirteenth Amendment. It was the basis for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which gave slaveholders the explicit right to capture their escaped slaves. The enforcement provisions of this Act were strengthened in 1850, leading to increased resistance to the Clause in the Northern states. Several Northern states enacted "personal liberty laws" to protect free Black residents and provide safeguards for accused fugitives.

Despite this resistance, the Supreme Court upheld the Fugitive Slave Clause in several cases, including Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) and Ableman v. Booth (1859). In Prigg v. Pennsylvania, the Court ruled that state laws that penalised the seizure of escaped slaves were unconstitutional and that states had no power to legislate on the subject. In Ableman v. Booth, the Court reinforced federal supremacy by ruling that states could not obstruct federal enforcement of the Clause.

The Fugitive Slave Clause has been the subject of debate among legal scholars, with some arguing that its vague wording avoided overtly validating slavery at the federal level, while others contend that it entrenched slaveholder power. The Declaration of the Immediate Causes, issued by South Carolina when it seceded from the Union in 1860, emphasised the importance of the Clause to the state and accused Northern states of violating it.

The Fugitive Slave Clause was rendered mostly irrelevant by the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery except as punishment for criminal acts. However, it has been noted that the Clause's language allowing people to be held to service or labour under certain circumstances has been referenced in more recent Supreme Court cases.

Abolitionist criticism

The US Constitution, in its original form, was heavily criticised by abolitionists for its implicit recognition of slavery. The Constitution did not expressly use the words "slave" or "slavery" but included several provisions that protected the institution of slavery. The Three-Fifths Compromise, for instance, allocated Congressional representation based on "the whole Number of free Persons" and "three-fifths of all other Persons". This clause gave the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College. The Fugitive Slave Clause further protected slavery by stating that slaves who escaped to another state did not become free but remained slaves.

The Constitution's failure to address slavery directly and its inclusion of clauses that protected the institution of slavery led many abolitionists to view it as a pro-slavery document. Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, for example, burned a copy of the Constitution in 1854, calling it "a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell". Garrison urged his readers not to vote, hold public office, or accept the authority of the Constitution as long as slavery existed. He even supported Northern secession from the United States, believing that disunion would result in massive slave revolts in the Southern states.

Another abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, an escaped slave and renowned author, disagreed with Garrison's interpretation of the Constitution. Douglass argued that the Framers of the Constitution had purposefully avoided mentioning slavery, believing that it was morally wrong and would eventually die out. Douglass's camp considered the Constitution to be an anti-slavery document, stating that slavery fell outside the Constitution's scope of legitimate authority and, therefore, should be abolished.

The debate between Garrison and Douglass's camps caused a rift in the abolitionist movement in the 19th century. While some abolitionists viewed the Constitution as a pro-slavery document, others believed it to be a document that could ultimately lead to the abolition of slavery. This interpretation is supported by the fact that, despite the inclusion of clauses protecting slavery, the Constitution created a central government powerful enough to eventually abolish the institution. Additionally, many of the Framers of the Constitution harboured moral qualms about slavery, with some becoming members of anti-slavery societies.

In conclusion, while the original US Constitution did include provisions that protected slavery, the document's overall stance on the institution was complex and subject to varying interpretations. The abolitionist movement's criticism of the Constitution highlights the ongoing struggle for racial equality and the enduring legacy of slavery in the United States.

Explore related products

Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II

$14.44 $20

Abolition: A History of Slavery and Antislavery

$26.18 $34.99

Up from Slavery (Dover Thrift Editions: Black History)

$5.25 $6

Humans in Shackles: An Atlantic History of Slavery

$31.96 $39.95

Plantation Goods: A Material History of American Slavery

$29.24 $35

Slavery and Capitalism: A New Marxist History

$31.7

Lincoln's stance

Abraham Lincoln's stance on slavery was complex. He was morally opposed to slavery and was known for his anti-slavery sentiments, famously stating, "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think and feel." However, Lincoln also recognised the complexities of abolishing slavery, which was deeply embedded in the nation's constitutional framework and economy.

Lincoln's views on slavery evolved over time, and he was cautious about his approach to ending it. He understood the importance of keeping the border states in the Union and was concerned about the potential reactions of those in the loyal border states where slavery was still legal. Lincoln's challenge was to balance his desire to end slavery with his duty to preserve the Union. He won the presidency in 1860 on a platform of preventing the spread of slavery beyond the existing states, affirming the Declaration's claim that "all men are created equal."

Lincoln's administration was pressured by abolitionists and radical Republicans to issue an Emancipation Proclamation. While he personally abhorred slavery, Lincoln felt confined by his constitutional authority as president to challenge slavery only in the context of necessary war measures. On January 1, 1863, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, utilising his power as Commander-in-Chief during a time of armed rebellion to order the emancipation of slaves in designated Confederate states.

Lincoln also proposed a constitutional amendment in his 1862 Annual Message to Congress, offering federal compensation in the form of interest-bearing US bonds to any state that voluntarily abolished slavery before 1900. This proposal allowed for the possibility of reintroducing slavery, demonstrating Lincoln's willingness to make compromises to end the war without permanently abolishing slavery. Lincoln also supported the voluntary colonisation of African Americans outside the United States, such as in Liberia.

Despite facing criticism and opposition, Lincoln's actions as president ultimately helped destroy slavery and advance the cause of black suffrage. His complex approach to ending slavery, while preserving the Union, has been interpreted differently by successive generations, with some accusing him of racism and others recognising his role in advancing civil and human rights.

Framers' beliefs

The framers of the US Constitution held differing beliefs about slavery, with some owning slaves and others being members of anti-slavery societies. The Constitution itself did not use the words "slave" or "slavery", but it included several provisions that implicitly recognised slavery and addressed the treatment of enslaved people.

Many of the framers of the Constitution had moral qualms about slavery. They believed that it contradicted the natural rights of all individuals and denied the idea of consent in a republic. They wanted to build a constitutional republic that equally protected the rights of all Americans. For example, James Madison, often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution", criticised slavery during the Constitutional Convention, stating:

> "We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man."

Similarly, George Mason, a Virginian who owned hundreds of slaves, spoke out against slavery. Gouverneur Morris called slavery a "nefarious institution". Some framers, including Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, became members of anti-slavery societies.

The framers consciously avoided using the word "slave" in the Constitution, recognising that it would sully the document. They believed that slavery was morally wrong and would eventually die out, and they did not want that permanent moral stain on the document. Instead, they used terms such as "persons" to refer to enslaved individuals.

However, it is important to note that some framers did own slaves. Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, about 25 owned slaves. 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. As a result, the framers sidestepped the issue of slavery, laying the groundwork for future conflict.

In summary, while the framers of the Constitution held varying beliefs about slavery, many recognised its moral wrongness and sought to protect the rights of all individuals. However, they also faced the challenge of uniting diverse states with differing views on slavery, which led to compromises that ultimately delayed the abolition of slavery in the United States.

Frequently asked questions