The American constitution is proslavery. The constitution protected acts of slavery and encouraged possession of slaves. Numerous parts of the constitution have multiple proslavery clauses. How effective the constitution was in protecting slavery is seen in an increase in the institution that occurred between the period when the federal government was formed in 1789 and secession that happened in Carolina in 1860. The number of slaves in the United States grew from 700,000 to approximately 4,000,000 for seven decades. Although Congress decided to eliminate slave grade at an international level in 1808, the domestic slave trade continued because it was allowed by the constitution. Many enslaved individuals were moved from states like Virginia to the South. Crimes against slaves were committed, and many lives lost. Although slaveholders were accountable as individuals, the American constitution permitted proslavery institutions to apply the federal government’s power to encourage dismaying activities.
American Proslavery Constitution
When the United States constitution is termed proslavery, it is because it offered protection to slavery and encouraged ownership of slaves. This was supported through various proslavery clauses in the constitution. According to Jefferson Davis, in his speech before the US Senate in 1860, the right to protection of the property is one of the principles that made the constitution proslavery 1 . The principle was interpreted to include slaves who were considered property by slaveholders. The component did not distinguish between slave property and other property hence the constitution in this way promoted slavery in America. As Jefferson Davis puts it, slave owners argued that “This is the general theory of the right of protection. . . . If general protection be the general duty, I ask, in the name of reason and constitutional right — I ask you to point me to authority by which a discrimination is made between slave property and any other” 2 .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act also encouraged slavery hence made the constitution proslavery. After a bill to make Nebraska a territorial government was introduced, the Missouri compromise was considered void and out of operation 3 . Through the bill, people could settle in Nebraska and practice slavery or refrain from it as they would find it right. This bill was passed and became a constitutional law hence promoting slavery in Nebraska by implying that enslavement could be perceived as a moral right. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 encouraged slaveholding too. This federal law gave power to the proslavery provision by allowing people who owned slaves to enter different states to repossess their property, which in this case were slaves 4 . For example, as a consequence of the law, some states in the North interpreted it as a license to capture free black people, and they started to ignore individual liberty laws, which gave some protection to slave fugitives. According to this Act, to recapture a slave, the slaveholder just presented him/herself before a commissioner and swore that the slave belonged to him or her. Slave owners were charged $10 for every recaptured slave and $5 for the ones set free 5 . The law forced the people living in the North to help officials apprehend fugitive slaves. As a result, Northerners were expected to catch slaves for apprehension.
Apportionment clause incorporated three-fifths of every other individual (slaves) to free inhabitants of states for representation reasons. The clause boosted the number of representatives in Congress for states practicing slavery 6 . This ratio also improved representation for states allowing slavery in the Electoral College when presidential elections were being conducted. The president was elected indirectly via the Electoral College formed by representatives from the Congress. The three-fifths aspect offered Whites living in slave states to have a great influence in presidential elections. Another component of the constitution that encouraged slavery is article IV Section 4, which protected states form slave rebellion under the provision of domestic violence. In addition, Article V of the constitution required three-fourths of states to approve a constitutional amendment and this benefited states practicing slavery by giving them a ceaseless veto over different alterations of the constitution.
The apportionment clause was strongly defended by individuals such as James Madison, who stated that “The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixt character of persons and of property. Let the compromising expedient of the constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the slave as divested of two fifth of the man.” 7 Moreover, slave import limitation clause prevented the US Congress from controlling the slave trade at the international level until 1808. Besides prohibition to control slave trade on an international platform, the Congress was also prohibited from amending the clause by Article V of the American constitution.
The argument presented in this paper is in contrast to the claims made by Frederick Douglass, who proposed that the American constitution was antislavery. Although he identified that the constitution had some slavery effects, Douglass and other individuals who believed that the constitution was antislavery claimed that its principles and purpose were very hostile to slavery. He considered it a glorious document. According to him, slaveholders were the ones who interpreted the constitution in their own favor, but the constitution did not contain language that implied support for slavery and the slave trade. The idea that Negroes are not part of the benefits established by the constitution is not stated in the constitution itself. According to Douglass, the constitution’s use of the word “people” does not mean the Whites only but the Blacks too. In contrast to this argument, as seen in the previous paragraphs of this essay, several clauses of the constitution clearly indicate support of slave ownership. It is not about interpretation by slave owners but rather what different constitutional Acts state and imply. Although reconstruction amendments tried to abolish slave ownership and trade to some extent, formal abolishing of the institution only altered play rules but not White dominance, as evidenced by the Jim Crow laws 8 . The compromise between freedom and slave ownership in 1787 granted slaveholder’s special privileges and their slave property was protected. This was granted in return for some business concessions towards the Northerners.
Conclusion
The American constitution offered protection to slavery by increasing the representation of slave owners and their states in the political arena. Such states had the greatest control of politics, and the laws passed at the federal level. This was achieved through the temporal limitation of the power held by Congress to control the international slave trade, and giving protection to the rights of slaveholders to repossess their escaped slaves under the Fugitive Slaves Act. In addition, the American constitution also encouraged slavery by offering more political representation for states allowing slave ownership while maintaining uncontrolled entry of slaves at the international platform for a period of twenty-one years. Direct taxes on slaves were not imposed. Taxes were required for products generated through slave labor. There exists no proof that the original United States constitution was developed to enhance equality and eradicate slavery completely. Evidence indicates that the constitution encouraged slavery under different laws enshrined in the constitution. It can, therefore, be concluded that the American constitution is proslavery.
Bibliography
Finkelman, Paul. “Proslavery Thought.” African American Studies Center , 2006. doi:10.1093/acref/9780195301731.013.44972.
Finkelman, Paul. “Garrison’s Constitution.” National Archives. Last modified June 5, 2020. https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-1.html.
Johnson, Michael P. Reading the American Past: Volume I: To 1877: Selected Historical Documents . Boston: Bedford, 2009.
Roark, James L., Michael P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise: A Concise History, Volume 1: To 1877 . Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2017.
1 Johnson, Michael P. Reading the American Past: Volume I: To 1877: Selected Historical Documents . Boston: Bedford, 2009.
2 Johnson, Michael P. Reading the American Past: Volume I: To 1877: Selected Historical Documents . Boston: Bedford, 2009.
3 Johnson, Michael P. Reading the American Past: Volume I: To 1877: Selected Historical Documents . Boston: Bedford, 2009.
4 Roark, James L., Michael P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise: A Concise History, Volume 1: To 1877 . Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2017.
5 Roark, James L., Michael P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise: A Concise History, Volume 1: To 1877 . Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2017.
6 Finkelman, Paul. "Garrison's Constitution." National Archives. Last modified June 5, 2020. https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-1.html.
7 Finkelman, Paul. "Garrison's Constitution." National Archives. Last modified June 5, 2020. https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-1.html.
8 Finkelman, Paul. "Proslavery Thought." African American Studies Center , 2006. doi:10.1093/acref/9780195301731.013.44972.
