Jonah Patel
The US Constitution has been criticised for its protection of slavery, despite its omission of the word slave. 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, with the latter referring to slaves. This clause gave the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College. The Constitution also prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for 20 years and included a fugitive slave clause requiring the return of runaway slaves to their owners. The Constitution's protection of slavery has been described as hypocritical, given its ideals of fairness, justice, and individual rights.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Omission of a bill of rights | The original version of the U.S. Constitution omitted a bill of rights. |
| No mention of "slave" or "slavery" | The words "slave" and "slavery" do not appear in the Constitution. |
| Three-Fifths Clause | Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 counted three-fifths of each state's slave population towards that state's total population for allocating the House of Representatives, giving Southern states more power. |
| Slave Trade Clause | Article I, Section 9 prohibited Congress from banning the importation of slaves until 1808. |
| Fugitive Slave Clause | Article IV, Section 2 required the return of fugitive slaves to their owners. |
| Domestic Violence Provision | Article IV, Section 4 guaranteed that the federal government could suppress slave rebellions. |
| Ratification Process | Article V ensured that slave-holding states had a perpetual veto over any constitutional changes. |
| Compromises and Concessions | Framers made compromises and concessions on slavery to gain support for a strong central government. |
| Protection of Slavery | The Constitution protected and institutionalized slavery, only protecting the rights of white men. |
| Lack of Enforcement | The Constitution does not specify how it is to be enforced, leaving it open to interpretation. |
| Inequality and Racism | The Constitution's legacy contributed to systemic racism and inequality, as seen in Jim Crow laws and educational inequality. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Three-Fifths Clause
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. The Compromise was a result of an impasse between the Slaveholding states and the Free states. The Slaveholding states wanted their entire population to be counted to determine the number of Representatives they could elect and send to Congress. On the other hand, the Free states wanted to exclude the counting of slave populations in slave states, as those slaves had no voting rights.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was seen as a way to preserve the republic while also confronting the moral and systemic evils of slavery. However, it was also criticised as a way to form bulwarks around the system of slavery and prevent slaves from gaining their freedom. The Compromise was superseded and explicitly repealed by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a significant part of the United States Constitution, and it played a crucial role in shaping the political landscape of the country during the early years of its existence. It was a compromise that aimed to balance the interests of the Slaveholding and Free states, but it also perpetuated the system of slavery and the inequality between the North and the South.
Understanding the Constitution: Exploring Its Subsections
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, was Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. The Clause required that a "Person held to Service or Labour" (usually a slave, apprentice, or indentured servant) who fled to another state had to be returned to their master in the state from which they escaped. The Fugitive Slave Clause was enacted to prevent slaves from escaping and to maintain the power of slaveholders.
The exact wording of the Clause is as follows:
> 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 Fugitive Slave Clause did not use the words "slave" or "slavery", in line with the Constitution's avoidance of the term. However, the Clause effectively gave constitutional legitimacy to slavery by upholding the right of slaveholders to reclaim their slaves. This was despite the fact that several states had already abolished slavery and passed laws to protect free Black residents from kidnapping.
The Fugitive Slave Clause was enforced by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which was strengthened in 1850. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Clause allowed the owner of an enslaved person to seize and repossess them in another state, and any state laws that penalised such a seizure were deemed unconstitutional.
The Fugitive Slave Clause was nullified by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery except as a punishment for criminal acts.
Diverse Species: Insects Rule the Animal Kingdom
You may want to see also
The Constitution's failure to use the word 'slavery'
The Constitution of the United States of America is a document steeped in history, and one that has been lauded for its revolutionary ideas of fairness, justice, and individual rights. However, one of its glaring omissions is its failure to use the word "slavery" or "slave", despite the fact that the institution of slavery was a major component of the economy and society in the United States at the time of its drafting in 1787. This omission has been described as one of the Constitution's "biggest flaws", and it is certainly a paradoxical aspect of the document.
The framers of the Constitution consciously avoided using the word "slave", recognising that it would sully the document. However, they did include several provisions that protected the institution of slavery. For example, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, prohibited Congress from banning the importation of "persons" until 1808, and Article 5 prohibited this clause from being amended. The Three-Fifths Clause in Article 1, Section 2, provided that representation in Congress would be based on the population of free persons, excluding untaxed Indians, and "three-fifths of all other persons". These "other persons" referred to the African slaves who comprised around a third of the population of the Southern states. The Constitution also included a fugitive slave clause, which required that escaped slaves be returned to their owners.
The framers of the Constitution believed that concessions on slavery were necessary to gain the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. Many of the framers themselves were slaveholders, and they harboured moral qualms about slavery. Some, such as Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, became members of anti-slavery societies. The controversy over the inclusion of slavery in the Constitution was a heated debate, with some arguing that the slave trade should be subject to federal regulation, while others threatened that the southern-most states "shall not be parties to the union" if this occurred. Ultimately, the framers sidestepped the issue, leaving the seeds for future conflict.
The Constitution's failure to address slavery directly had significant consequences. It took a Civil War and constitutional amendments to eventually eliminate slavery, and racial inequalities that can be traced back to slavery have persisted throughout American history. The Constitution's ambiguous language around concepts like "equal protection" left interpretation up to the states, allowing for the systemic racism that would manifest in laws like the Jim Crow laws in the Southern states.
In conclusion, the Constitution's failure to use the word "slavery" or "slave" is a notable omission that has had far-reaching implications. While the framers may have had their reasons for avoiding the word, the result was a document that protected and institutionalised slavery and failed to uphold the rights and freedoms of all Americans.
Georgia Constitution: Where Does the Body Belong?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$0.75 $4
The omission of 'equality' from the preamble
The United States Constitution, drafted in 1787, was a document that protected and institutionalised slavery. It did not contain the words "slave" or "slavery" but dealt directly with American slavery in at least five of its provisions, indirectly protecting the institution in other parts of the document.
The Constitution's biggest flaw was its omission of equality from the preamble, a document that protected only the rights of white men. The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 after the Civil War, added the assurance of equal protection. The lack of clarity around concepts such as "equal protection" left interpretation up to the states, which led to systemic racism and the Jim Crow laws that protected segregation in the Southern states.
The framers of the Constitution deliberately avoided using direct language about slavery, as they recognised it would sully the document. The issue of slavery may have played a role in the omission of a bill of rights in the original version of the U.S. Constitution. The framers' conflicted stance towards slavery led them to sidestep the issue, leaving the seeds for future conflict.
The economic and political realities of slavery also made substantive action impossible during the Constitutional Convention. The South's complete economic dependence on slavery meant that the framers could not abolish the institution without risking the support of southern delegates for a strong central government.
The Constitution's protection of slavery was a moral and legal crisis that contributed to the coming of the Civil War. It took a Civil War and constitutional amendments to eliminate slavery, but racial inequalities that can be traced back to slavery have existed throughout American history and persist today.
Vaccine Mandates: Unconstitutional Violation of Bodily Autonomy
You may want to see also
The Constitution's protection of slavery
The Constitution of the United States is often criticised for its protection of slavery, despite its revolutionary ideals of fairness, justice, and individual rights. Notably, the document does not use the words "slave" or "slavery", but includes several provisions that protect the institution of slavery.
One of the most well-known examples is the Three-Fifths Compromise, which allocated Congressional representation based on "the whole Number of free Persons" and "three-fifths of all other Persons". This clause gave Southern states, where slavery was a significant part of the economy, extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College. This compromise was a result of the debate between Southern politicians, who wanted enslaved African-Americans to be counted as 'persons' for congressional representation, and Northern politicians, who rejected this idea due to concerns about giving too much power to the South.
Another example is Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, which prohibited Congress from banning the importation of "persons" (understood to mean enslaved African persons) for twenty years after the Constitution took effect. This clause was a compromise between the Southern states, where slavery was crucial to the economy, and the Northern states, where abolition was gaining traction. It was also during this time that the Fugitive Slave Clause was adopted, requiring the return of runaway slaves to their owners.
The Constitution also gave the federal government the power to put down domestic rebellions, including slave insurrections. This was seen as a concession to the Southern delegates in exchange for their support for a strong central government.
While there were some forward-thinking framers who believed that the Constitution's power to prohibit the slave trade would eventually lead to the end of slavery, others recognised the contradiction between their revolutionary ideals and the protection of slavery. For example, Luther Martin of Maryland, a slaveholder himself, argued that the slave trade was contrary to America's republican ideals and inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution.
The protection of slavery in the Constitution would have far-reaching consequences, and it would take a Civil War and constitutional amendments to eventually eliminate slavery in the United States. However, the racial inequalities that stemmed from slavery persisted, and the interpretation of the Constitution's vague language on equality led to the systemic racism and segregation of Jim Crow laws in the post-Reconstruction era.
Rousseau's Influence on the Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Constitution's biggest flaw is that it protected the institution of slavery. Article 1, Section 9, prohibits Congress from banning the importation of slaves until 1808, and Article 5 prohibited this from being amended. Article 1, Section 2, provides that, for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved black people in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state. Article 4, Section 2, contains the “fugitive slave clause”, which required that an escaped slave be returned to their owner.
The Constitution is hypocritical because it champions individual rights and fairness, yet allowed human beings to be reduced to chattel. The framers of the Constitution were aware of the contradiction, with Luther Martin of Maryland, a slaveholder, saying that the slave trade was "inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution" and "dishonorable to the American character".
Lincoln did not believe that the Constitution was designed to protect slavery. He disagreed with the 1857 Dred Scott opinion by Chief Justice Roger Taney, who stated that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution". Lincoln argued that the Founders did not think they could free themselves and their slaves at the same time.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a clause in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which 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 out of concern for too much power for the South.
