Jonah Patel
The relationship between slavery and the US Constitution is a complex and often paradoxical topic. While the Constitution's authors aimed to establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, they left out a distinction between person and property, ultimately protecting slavery. The Constitution's Three-Fifths Clause and the absence of the word slave illustrate the document's concessions to slavery. This complex history, including the Dred Scott v. Sandford case and the abolition movement, reveals the tensions between slavery and the Constitution's ideals.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| The US Constitution's stance on slavery | The US Constitution did not abolish slavery and included clauses that protected the slave trade and gave extra representation to slave states. |
| The Founding Fathers' stance on slavery | Many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, but some criticised the institution of slavery and became members of anti-slavery societies. |
| The Three-Fifths Clause | This clause in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution provided that apportionment of representatives would be based on the population of free persons, excluding "Indians not taxed" and counting "three-fifths of all other persons" (i.e. slaves). |
| The Fugitive Slave Clause | This clause in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution stated that "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 Slave Trade Clause | Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of the US Constitution prohibited the federal government from banning the importation of "persons" (i.e. slaves) until 1808 and allowed Congress to impose a tax on the importation of enslaved people. |
| The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision | In 1857, the US Supreme Court ruled that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and could not be protected by the federal government or courts; this decision was later overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and granted citizenship to all persons born in the US. |
| The impact of the Constitution on slavery | The US Constitution created a central government that eventually abolished slavery, but its concessions to slavery also laid the foundation for future tragic events. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Founding Fathers' views on slavery
Some Founding Fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, recognized the injustice of slavery and the slave trade. In his initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson included a harsh condemnation of the slave trade, calling it a "cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty." James Madison, often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," also attacked slavery early in the Constitutional Convention, criticizing the moral and ethical implications of the institution. Gouverneur Morris, another Founding Father, echoed these sentiments, referring to slavery as a "nefarious institution" and "the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed."
However, the Founding Fathers' views on slavery were often influenced by economic and political considerations. The Southern Founders, in particular, had significant investments in slave-based staple agriculture, and their deep-seated racial prejudice posed obstacles to emancipation. Additionally, the Founding Fathers believed that concessions on slavery were necessary to maintain 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 Founding Fathers drafted constitutional clauses that acknowledged regional differences over slavery while requiring compromises. For example, the Three-Fifths Clause granted slave-holding states enhanced representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College based on their slave populations. The Fugitive Slave Clause encouraged the return of runaway slaves, further protecting the interests of slave-holding states.
While some Founding Fathers, like George Washington, freed their slaves in their wills or through collective manumission, others, like Thomas Jefferson, failed to do so despite their stated opposition to slavery. Jefferson recognized the moral evil of slavery but felt powerless to change the situation, believing that abolition would have to be achieved by future generations.
Ben Franklin's Ideas: Shaping the US Constitution
You may want to see also
The Three-Fifths Clause
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between delegates from the Northern and Southern states at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Southern states wanted enslaved people to be counted as "persons" for the purpose of representation in Congress, as representation was based on population. On the other hand, Northern politicians rejected this idea as they were concerned about giving too much power to the South. The compromise allowed slaveholding states to count three-fifths of their enslaved population when allocating representatives to Congress, resulting in perpetual overrepresentation in national politics.
The inclusion of the Three-Fifths Clause in the Constitution has been a subject of debate and criticism. While some argue that it gave slaveholders a vested interest in acknowledging the personhood of the enslaved, others, like Thurgood Marshall, the first African American Supreme Court justice, considered the Constitution ""defective from the start" due to its concessions to slavery. Many of the framers of the Constitution had moral qualms about slavery, and some, including Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, became members of anti-slavery societies. However, they believed that concessions on slavery were necessary to maintain the unity of the new nation and gain the support of southern delegates for a strong central government.
US vs. FL Constitutions: Key Differences Explored
You may want to see also
The Fugitive Slave Clause
The clause was designed to protect the interests of slaveholders, ensuring that their property could be retrieved even if it fled to a state where slavery was outlawed. This clause was particularly important to Southern states, where slavery was a significant part of the economy and society. The Fugitive Slave Clause was enforced through mechanisms such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which led to increased resistance from Northern states. Several Northern states enacted "personal liberty laws" to protect their Black residents from kidnapping and provide procedural safeguards for accused fugitives.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified after the Civil War, abolished slavery except as a punishment for criminal acts, rendering the Fugitive Slave Clause mostly irrelevant. However, the clause still remains in the Constitution, serving as a reminder of the moral and political debates surrounding the international trade in human beings.
The UDHR's Influence on Jamaica's Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Slave Trade Clause
In 1808, the Act "to prohibit the importation of slaves" was passed, imposing heavy penalties on international traders. However, this did not end slavery or the domestic sale of slaves, and the interstate sale of slaves remained legal. The Slave Trade Clause is no longer constitutionally relevant, but it still holds cultural and political significance in the discourse on the morality and profitability of the international trade in human beings.
Nevada's Constitution: Understanding the Silver State's Foundation
You may want to see also
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
The Dred Scott case grew in significance as slavery became the most explosive issue in American politics. The Supreme Court's ruling on March 6, 1857, just two days after the inauguration of President James Buchanan, stated three main points: Firstly, that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and therefore could not expect protection from the federal government or the courts. Secondly, it asserted that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from federal territories. Finally, the ruling also stated that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had declared all territories north of latitude 36°30' west of Missouri as free, was unconstitutional.
The Dred Scott decision is often viewed as an example of the Supreme Court imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. Later Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes characterised the decision as the Court's "self-inflicted wound". The ruling was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared all persons born in the United States as citizens.
The Dred Scott case highlights the complex and contradictory nature of the U.S. Constitution's stance on slavery. While the Constitution's authors aimed for inclusivity and justice, they deliberately avoided explicitly mentioning "slavery" or "slave". This omission allowed for the protection and perpetuation of slavery, despite the moral qualms and criticisms of many of the Founding Fathers. The three-fifths clause, for example, gave southern states extra representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College based on their slave populations. The Constitution's failure to address slavery directly left a legacy of ambiguity and compromise that continues to shape the nation's path.
Commander in Chief: A Constitutional Conundrum
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, the US Constitution protected slavery. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, is one of a handful of provisions in the original Constitution related to slavery, though it does not use the word "slave". This clause prohibited the federal government from limiting the importation of "persons", which was understood at the time to mean the importation of slaves.
No, the Founding Fathers did not support slavery. Many of the framers harbored moral qualms about slavery. Some, including Benjamin Franklin (a former slaveholder) and Alexander Hamilton (who was born in a slave colony in the British West Indies) became members of anti-slavery societies. The "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, attacked slavery early in the 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."
No, the word "slave" does not appear in the US Constitution. The framers consciously avoided the word, recognizing that it would sully the document.
No, the US Constitution did not abolish slavery. In fact, it included the Three-Fifths Clause, which counted three-fifths of a state’s slave population in apportioning representation, giving the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College.
Yes, the US Constitution addressed the slave trade in Article 1, Section 9, which stated that "the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight". This clause effectively protected the slave trade until 1808.
