Slavery's Legal Past: The Constitution's Dark Legacy

The United States Constitution, from its inception, implicitly recognised slavery through provisions such as the Fugitive Slave Clause and the Three-Fifths Compromise. While the word slave does not appear in the Constitution, slavery was a highly debated topic during the framing of the document, with many framers harbouring moral qualms about the institution. The question of whether the Constitution was a pro-slavery document remains controversial, as it temporarily strengthened slavery but also created a central government powerful enough to eventually abolish it. The 13th Amendment, passed in 1865, formally abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States, except as punishment for a crime. However, the amendment only ended chattel slavery, and slavery continues to be legal in certain states through constitutional loopholes.

Explore related products

Dred Scott and the Politics of Slavery (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$24.99 $29.99

Born Equal: Remaking America’s Constitution, 1840–1920

$36.96 $40

Creating a More Perfect Slaveholders' Union: Slavery, the Constitution, and Secession in Antebellum America (Constitutional Thinking)

$10.76 $59.99

American Inheritance: Liberty and Slavery in the Birth of a Nation, 1765-1795

$17.08 $32.5

Slavery and the Supreme Court, 1825-1861

$59.99

A Necessary Evil?: Slavery and the Debate of the Constitution

$91.72

The Three-Fifths Compromise gave extra representation to slave states

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a key component of the US Constitution, and it had a significant impact on the representation of slave states in the country's political landscape. This compromise, also known as the "notorious three-fifths clause", was a result of intense debates and differing viewpoints between the Northern and Southern delegates during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The compromise dictated that three-fifths of each state's slave population would be counted toward that state's total population. This count had a direct impact on determining the number of seats in the House of Representatives, the allocation of electoral votes, and the calculation of taxes for each state. The Southern delegates, who were slaveholders, advocated for their entire population, including slaves, to be considered when determining representation. On the other hand, the Northern delegates, who had far fewer slaves, argued that only voters should be accounted for.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a solution to this impasse. By including three-fifths of the slave population in the calculations, the Southern states gained more representation in the House of Representatives relative to the Northern states. This resulted in increased political power for the slaveholding states and, consequently, a stronger influence in the Southern legislatures. The Compromise also had financial implications, as it reduced the tax burden on the slave states by tying taxation to the same three-fifths ratio.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a highly contentious issue, and it is important to note that it did not completely satisfy either side. While it gave the Southern states more representation, it was still a compromise from their original demand for full representation of their slave populations. Meanwhile, the Northern states had to accept a level of representation for slaves that they had initially opposed.

The Compromise was a reflection of the complex and divisive nature of slavery in the United States at the time. While the Constitution stopped short of using the word "slave", it provided important protections for the institution of slavery. The Three-Fifths Compromise, in particular, contributed to the power dynamics between the North and the South, shaping the political landscape of the young nation.

The Constitution prohibited Congress from outlawing the slave trade for 20 years

The Constitution of the United States, from its inception, was crafted in a way that divided the country into states that allowed slavery and states that prohibited it. The word "slave" does not appear in the Constitution, but slavery received important protections in the document. The Three-Fifths Clause, for instance, 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.

The Constitution also included the Fugitive Slave Clause, which required the return of runaway slaves to their owners, and it gave the federal government the power to put down domestic rebellions, including slave insurrections. 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.

The controversy over the Atlantic slave trade was settled through a compromise. In exchange for a 20-year ban on any restrictions on the slave trade, southern delegates agreed to remove a clause restricting the national government's power to enact laws requiring goods to be shipped on American vessels. This compromise, known as the Slave Trade Clause or Article 1, Section 9, prohibited the federal government from limiting the importation of "persons" where state governments allowed it, for 20 years after the Constitution took effect. This 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 desired.

The 20-year period provided an opportunity for the political realm to address the issue of slavery, and in 1806, President Thomas Jefferson anticipated the upcoming expiration of this clause in his annual message to Congress. In 1807, Congress passed a statute prohibiting the importation of slaves as of January 1, 1808, which was signed by President Jefferson and rendered this part of the Constitution irrelevant.

The Fugitive Slave Clause required the return of runaway slaves

The Fugitive Slave Clause, or Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, was a provision in the US Constitution that required runaway slaves to be returned to their enslavers. This clause 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.

This clause effectively nullified any laws or regulations in a free state that would have discharged a fugitive slave from their obligation to their enslaver. It also contemplated the existence of a right on the part of a slaveholder to reclaim an enslaved person who had escaped to another state.

The Fugitive Slave Clause was unanimously approved by the Convention without further debate, despite objections from James Wilson and Roger Sherman, who argued that it would oblige state executives to seize fugitive slaves at public expense. The inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was influenced by the belief that concessions on slavery were necessary to gain the support of southern delegates for a strong central government.

The Fugitive Slave Clause 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 from one state to another or into a federal territory. These acts met with strong opposition in the Northern states, and the 1850 act was one part of the Compromise of 1850, a series of bills addressing multiple issues related to slavery. The Fugitive Slave Clause and the Fugitive Slave Acts were ultimately nullified by the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.

Explore related products

The Interbellum Constitution: Union, Commerce, and Slavery in the Age of Federalisms (Yale Law Library Series in Legal History and Reference)

$36.99 $45

The Laws of Slavery in Texas: Historical Documents and Essays (Texas Legal Studies Series)

$19.36 $19.95

Enslaved Archives: Slavery, Law, and the Production of the Past

$30.22 $49.95

No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation’s Founding, With a New Preface (The Nathan I. Huggins Lectures)

$22 $17.19

Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification

$17.1 $19.99

Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers (Simon & Schuster Lincoln Library)

$10.29 $16.99

Southern states threatened to leave the Union if slavery was abolished

The Constitution of the United States, from its inception in 1776, implicitly recognised slavery in several provisions. The Three-Fifths Compromise, for instance, gave the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College. The Fugitive Slave Clause, meanwhile, required the return of runaway slaves to their owners. The Constitution also prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for 20 years.

Despite this, the Constitution did create a central government powerful enough to eventually abolish slavery. The framers of the Constitution consciously avoided using the word "slave", recognising that it would sully the document. Many of the framers also had moral qualms about slavery. Benjamin Franklin, for example, was a former slaveholder who later became a member of an anti-slavery society.

Southern states, however, threatened to leave the Union if slavery was abolished. They argued that they could not accept Republican rule and its assertion of slavery's evils. They believed that sharing a government with a population so openly hostile to slavery would destroy their economic and political power long before slavery was legally abolished. They also believed that they could easily defeat the North in a war.

Southern states also demanded the enforcement of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. They believed that the North had formed a sectional party that was actively sowing the seeds of discord and seeking to destroy their present condition without providing a better alternative.

In 1861 and 1862, Congress enacted legislation known as the Confiscation Acts, which freed enslaved persons who came within Union lines and had been under Confederate masters. However, President Lincoln was reluctant to enforce these laws strictly due to concerns that border states would secede from the Union.

On January 1, 1863, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect, declaring that all persons enslaved in the rebelling states were free. By April 1861, the Confederacy had fired upon Fort Sumter, and war was declared upon the United States.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed in 1865, finally abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.

Many of the framers of the Constitution owned slaves

The United States Constitution did not contain the words "slave" or "slavery" within its text. However, it dealt directly with American slavery in at least five of its provisions and indirectly protected the institution elsewhere in the document. The word "slave" was avoided in the Constitution, as the framers recognised that it would sully the document. Nevertheless, slavery received important protections in the Constitution.

Out of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, about 25 owned slaves. 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. Luther Martin of Maryland, a slaveholder, said that the slave trade should be subject to federal regulation since the entire nation would be responsible for suppressing slave revolts. He also considered the slave trade contrary to America’s republican ideals. A Virginia delegate, George Mason, who owned hundreds of slaves, spoke out against slavery in ringing terms. "Slavery," he said, "discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves."

The framers' conflicted stance toward slavery led them to deliberately avoid using direct language about the institution in the Constitution. They were convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union. By sidestepping the slavery issue, the framers left the seeds for future conflict. Madison wrote: "It seems now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lies not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination."

Frequently asked questions