Download the PDF - American Enterprise Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6 SLAVERY AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION of the debates between these different groups, but a brief summary will be useful. Two main issues separate these two groups. One is: how favorable was the Constitution produced in 1787 to slavery? The second is: what were the motives upon which the Founding generation acted when they acted with regard to slavery? Now the Neo-Garrisonians answer the first question by saying that the Constitution was very favorable to the institution of slavery— that the Constitution gave slavery a great deal of life-sustaining aid, including recognition of its moral legitimacy. To them, the Constitution was indeed an immoral compromise. The Neo-Lincolnians, while conceding that the Constitution did indeed contain some accommodations to the institution of slavery, deny that these were nearly as substantial as the Neo-Garrisonians claim. And they particularly deny that the Constitution stamped the institution with some kind of recognition of its moral legitimacy. The Neo-Garrisonians answer the second question about the motives behind the actions of the Founders by saying that they were moved by the same complex of motives that led to the establishment and thriving of slavery in the first place: greed, racism, Christian triumphalism, and moral indifference. The Neo-Lincolnians, on the other hand, emphasize the place of slavery in the constitutional order as due primarily to the press of necessity: they argue that without these concessions to slavery, the Union could not have been made, and so to them the Constitution was a moral, or at least a necessary, compromise. The Neo-Lincolnians frequently point in this connection to the expectation—or the hope, anyway—among many of the Founders that the process of abolition begun in the states during and just after the American Revolution would continue until slavery had been removed from the land. The scholarly debates on the place of slavery in the Constitution can be very heated. The topic is indeed so controversial that the parties cannot even agree on how many parts of the Constitution are relevant to slavery. One Neo-Garrisonian that I know found in the Constitution 18 clauses directly or indirectly supportive of slavery. The Neo-Lincolnians find far fewer (only three): the three-fifths
MICHAEL P. ZUCKERT 7 formula for representation and taxation, the Slave Trade Clause, and the Fugitive Slave Clause. Since these three clauses are important for my talk, I’ll pause a minute and give you a quick idea of what’s in them. The formulas for representation and direct taxes provided that each state would have seats in the House of Representatives in proportion to the number of “free persons” in the state and, then they use the phrase, three-fifths of “all other persons.” “All other persons” in this context is a roundabout way of saying “the slaves.” All free persons count for one, and all slaves count for three-fifths. So far as there would be “direct taxes,” these also would be apportioned according to that same formula. The slave states would in effect get a bonus in representation for their slaves, but they would also be liable for more taxes for that same reason. As it turned out, direct taxes were not levied, so this formula turned out to be a bonus for the slave states and they didn’t have to pay any kind of particular penalty for it. The Slave Trade Clause denied Congress the power to prohibit the slave trade until 1808, 20 years from the ratification of the Constitution. The Fugitive Slave Clause provided, again in very roundabout language, that a slave escaping from one state into another would not become free by virtue of having done that but instead “shall be delivered up.” Now, for the rest of my talk, what I would like to do is to go beyond the Neo-Garrisonian–Neo-Lincolnian battle and put forward a somewhat different account of slavery in the Convention and in the Constitution. I want to begin by saying a bit about the context of slavery at the time of the Constitutional Convention because I think both the Neo-Lincolnians and the Neo-Garrisonians go astray by not taking sufficiently seriously that context. The historical circumstances in place at the time of the Constitutional Convention were very different from the subsequent history of slavery in America. Therefore, that subsequent history does not form an adequate basis for thinking about the expectations of the people who wrote the Constitu-
Page 1 and 2: Slavery and the Constitutional Conv
Page 3: The Walter Berns Constitution Day L
Page 6 and 7: 4 SLAVERY AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL CO
Page 10 and 11: 8 SLAVERY AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL CO
Page 12 and 13: 10 SLAVERY AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL C
Page 25: Notes 1. Thurgood Marshall, “Rema
Page 28 and 29: Board of Trustees Tully M. Friedman
Page 30: Slavery and the Constitutional Conv

Download the PDF - American Enterprise Institute

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?