Omar Bennett
The US Constitution has been criticized for its failure to abolish slavery and for protecting the institution of slavery in the states where it existed. The Constitution included the Three-Fifths Compromise, which 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. It also included the Fugitive Slave Clause, which required the return of runaway slaves to their owners, and prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for 20 years. While some members of the Constitutional Convention voiced objections to slavery, the framers consciously avoided using the word slave in the document, recognizing that it would sully the document. The framers' conflicted stance towards slavery led them to deliberately avoid using direct language about the institution in the Constitution, and instead leave the issue to the states.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| The Constitution's stance on slavery | The Constitution did not free slaves after 1812 because it was designed to protect slavery, at least temporarily. The Constitution included the Fugitive Slave Clause and the Three-Fifths Clause, which protected slavery and gave slaveholding states a perpetual veto over constitutional changes. |
| The Framers' intentions | The Framers of the Constitution believed that concessions on slavery were necessary to gain the support of southern delegates. They wanted to form a strong central government and were convinced that some states would refuse to join the Union if slavery was restricted. Many Framers had moral qualms about slavery, but they deliberately avoided using direct language about it in the Constitution. |
| The role of economics | The best argument that delegates could muster in favor of slavery was the protection of their economic interests. |
| The role of popular sovereignty | Some people, such as Stephen Douglas, believed that the principle of popular sovereignty gave whites in states the right to decide for themselves whether to own slaves. |
| The impact of the American Revolution | Some believed that slavery contradicted the principles of the American Revolution and was dishonorable to the American character. |
| The question of pro-slavery vs. anti-slavery | There is ongoing debate about whether the Constitution was pro-slavery or anti-slavery. James Oakes and others argue that it can be interpreted as both, depending on which clauses are cited and how they are interpreted. |
| The absence of the word "slave" | The word "slave" is notably absent from the Constitution. Instead, the document refers to persons held to service or labor. |
| The impact of the Three-Fifths Compromise | The Three-Fifths Compromise gave the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College. This compromise was crucial for Thomas Jefferson's election victory in 1800. |
| The Slave Trade Clause | Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution prohibited the federal government from limiting the importation of "persons" (primarily enslaved African persons) until 20 years after the Constitution took effect. This clause expired in 1808, and in that year, Congress passed a statute prohibiting the importation of slaves. |
| The impact of the 1808 expiration | The expiration of the Slave Trade Clause in 1808, along with increasing popular support for abolition, created the conditions for the eventual abolition of slavery. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The Constitution's original text did not refer to slavery by name
- The Three-Fifths Clause gave the South extra representation
- The Fugitive Slave Clause required the return of runaway slaves
- The Constitution gave the federal government power to put down slave rebellions
- The Framers believed slavery contradicted natural rights
The Constitution's original text did not refer to slavery by name
The original text of the US Constitution did not refer to slavery by name. The word "slave" does not appear in the Constitution, with its framers consciously avoiding the word, recognising that it would sully the document.
The Constitution did, however, include several provisions about unfree persons. The Three-Fifths Compromise, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, allocated Congressional representation based on "the whole Number of free Persons" and "three-fifths of all other Persons". This clause was a compromise between Southern politicians who wished for enslaved African Americans to be counted as 'persons' for congressional representation and Northern politicians who rejected these proposals out of concern for giving the South too much power. Representation in the new Congress would be based on population in contrast to the one-vote-for-one-state principle in the earlier Continental Congress.
The Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3) also did not employ the term "slave". Instead, it granted the owner of a person held in service or labour the right to seize and repossess them in another state, regardless of that state's laws.
The framers of the Constitution believed that concessions on slavery were the price for the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. They were convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, states such as South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union. By sidestepping the slavery issue, the framers left the seeds for future conflict.
The Constitution also prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years. This was known as the Slave Trade Clause (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1). It prohibited the federal government from limiting the importation of "persons" (understood at the time to mean primarily enslaved African persons) where existing state governments saw fit to allow it, until 20 years after the Constitution took effect. This clause was a compromise between Southern states, where slavery was pivotal to the economy, and states where the abolition of slavery had been accomplished or was contemplated.
The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, passed by the Senate on 8 April 1864, abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
Military Officers: Swearing Allegiance to the Constitution
You may want to see also
The Three-Fifths Clause gave the South extra representation
The Three-Fifths Compromise, or the Three-Fifths Clause, was a compromise struck between slave states and free states during the Constitutional Convention. The Southern, slaveholding states wanted their entire population to be counted to determine the number of representatives they could send to Congress. Northern, free states, on the other hand, wanted to exclude the counting of slave populations in slave states, since those slaves had no voting rights.
The Three-Fifths 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. This gave the Southern states more power in the House relative to the Northern states. It also gave slaveholders similarly enlarged powers in Southern legislatures. This was an issue in the secession of West Virginia from Virginia in 1863. Free black people and indentured servants were not subject to the compromise and were counted as one full person for representation.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. The Convention unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, it initially rejected the proposal, which was later passed as Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was part of the Great Compromise, which addressed the states' fear of an imbalance of power in Congress. The Great Compromise provided for a bicameral legislature with proportional representation based on a state's population for one chamber and equal state representation in the other. The Three-Fifths Compromise was also a cornerstone of the Great Compromise, settling the controversy between large and small states by providing that the House of Representatives would be apportioned based on population, while the states would be equally represented in the Senate.
The Three-Fifths Compromise has been interpreted in different ways. Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to sit on the Supreme Court, considered the U.S. Constitution defective from the start and believed that the Three-Fifths Clause gave the South extra representation. Others, like Thomas Jefferson, benefited from the Compromise, as he would have lost the election of 1800 without it. Some argue that the Compromise encouraged freedom by giving an increase of "two-fifths" of political power to free over slave states.
Compromises in the Constitution: A Foundation of Unity
You may want to see also
The Fugitive Slave Clause required the return of runaway slaves
The U.S. Constitution, in its original form, did not explicitly mention slavery, but it included several clauses that protected the institution of slavery and empowered slave owners. One such provision was the Fugitive Slave Clause, also known as Article IV, Section 2, which required the return of runaway slaves to their owners.
The Fugitive Slave Clause, adopted on August 21, 1787, stated that a person held to service or labour in one state who escaped to another state could not be discharged from such service or labour due to the laws of the state they escaped to. In other words, it granted slave owners the right to reclaim their escaped slaves, regardless of the laws of the state into which they had fled. This clause was unanimously approved by the convention, despite objections from some delegates who argued that it would oblige state executives to seize fugitive slaves at public expense.
The Fugitive Slave Clause was a significant component of the Constitution that strengthened the institution of slavery. It was enforced through the Fugitive Slave Acts, passed by Congress in 1793 and 1850, which provided for the seizure and return of runaway enslaved people who escaped across state lines or into federal territories. These acts faced strong opposition, particularly in the Northern states, where some laws were enacted to hamper their execution and protect escaped slaves.
The Fugitive Slave Clause and the Fugitive Slave Acts played a role in the broader conflict between the Northern and Southern states over the issue of slavery. The Southern states relied heavily on enslaved labour and sought to protect and expand the institution, while the Northern states increasingly opposed slavery on moral grounds. The conflict over slavery eventually led to the Civil War and the abolition of slavery through the Thirteenth Amendment.
While the Fugitive Slave Clause and the Fugitive Slave Acts no longer hold legal power, they remain a part of the Constitution and continue to have cultural and political relevance. They serve as a reminder of the complicated history of slavery in the United States and the challenges faced in the struggle for freedom and equality.
Constitutionalism and Democracy: Partners or Rivals?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$29.99 $37.99
The Constitution gave the federal government power to put down slave rebellions
The US Constitution, drafted in 1787, did not contain the word "slave", but slavery was a fiercely debated topic during the Constitutional Convention, and the document included references and protections for enslavement. The Constitution gave the federal government the power to put down domestic rebellions, including slave insurrections. This was a significant concern for slave-holding states, and fear of slave uprisings increased in the early decades of the 19th century. The federal government's power to suppress slave revolts was a key part of the compromise on the slavery issue.
The Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted three-fifths of a state's slave population for representation, gave southern states with large slave populations an advantage in terms of representation and electoral votes. This compromise was a cornerstone of the Great Compromise, which addressed states' fears of an imbalance of power in Congress by providing for a bicameral legislature with proportional representation. The Three-Fifths Compromise created the "Slave Power" in the legislature, making it easier for bills favourable to the southern region to pass in Congress.
The Constitution also included the Fugitive Slave Clause, which required the return of runaway slaves to their owners. This clause did not use the word "slave" but granted the owner of a person held in service or labour the right to seize and repossess them in another state, regardless of that state's laws. 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, states like South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union.
While the Constitution did not explicitly use the term "slave", it included provisions related to slavery. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, prohibited the federal government from limiting the importation of "persons" where state governments allowed it, for 20 years after the Constitution took effect. This compromise between southern and other states allowed the southern states to continue the slave trade, pivotal to their economy, while the other states contemplated or accomplished abolition. This clause expired in 1808, and in that year, Congress prohibited the importation of slaves.
The Constitution's failure to address slavery directly and its inclusion of protections for slavery had significant consequences. Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to sit on the Supreme Court, said on the 200th anniversary of the Constitution's ratification that it was "defective from the start". He noted that the framers had left out a majority of Americans when they wrote "We the People". Marshall's critique highlights how the Constitution's compromises on slavery laid the foundation for tragic future events, including the Civil War and the continued struggle for racial equality.
The Constitution's Probable Cause: What's the Reasonable Suspicion?
You may want to see also
The Framers believed slavery contradicted natural rights
The Framers of the Constitution believed that slavery contradicted the natural rights of all Americans. They were revolutionary thinkers who aimed to establish a constitutional republic that equally protected the rights of all. The "Father of the Constitution", James Madison, criticised slavery, stating that it was built on the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.
Despite this, the Constitution did not free slaves, and even protected slavery in several ways. Firstly, it prohibited Congress from banning the slave trade for twenty years. Secondly, it included the Three-Fifths Clause, which counted three-fifths of a state's slave population when apportioning representation, giving the South more representation in the House of Representatives and more votes in the Electoral College. Thirdly, it included a fugitive slave clause that required the return of runaway slaves to their owners. Finally, it gave the federal government the power to put down slave insurrections.
These protections were concessions made to gain the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. The Framers believed that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, southern states like South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union. By avoiding the issue of slavery, the Framers laid the foundation for future conflict.
While the Constitution may have strengthened slavery in the short term, it also created a central government with the power to eventually abolish it. The Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862, the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862, and the Abolition of Slavery Act all contributed to ending slavery. The Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in the US, was a result of the Civil War fought to free the slaves.
Business Law: The Constitution's Impact
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Constitution did not free slaves after 1812 because it was designed to avoid the issue of slavery altogether. The framers of the Constitution believed that concessions on slavery were the price for the support of southern delegates for a strong central government.
Yes, the Constitution protected slavery. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, prohibited the federal government from limiting the importation of "persons" for 20 years after the Constitution took effect. The Constitution also included the Fugitive Slave Clause, which required the return of runaway slaves to their owners, and the Three-Fifths Clause, which gave the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College.
Yes, many of the framers of the Constitution had moral qualms about slavery. Some, including Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, became members of anti-slavery societies. James Madison, Gouverneur Morris, and George Mason also criticized slavery.
No, the Constitution did not abolish slavery. However, it created a central government powerful enough to eventually abolish the institution. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, passed in 1865, abolished slavery in the United States.
Yes, before the 13th Amendment, some states in the US had already abolished slavery. By 1787, slavery was banned by the states in New England and Pennsylvania and by the Congress of the Confederation in the Northwest Territory.
