Slavery Proposition in the United States
The First Proposition (the Federal Convention, 1789)
In the book “The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America 1638-1870” (1), W. E. B. Du Bois explained the following: Slavery occupied no prominent place in the Convention called to remedy the glaring defects of the Confederation, for the obvious reason that few of the delegates thought it expedient to touch a delicate subject which, if let alone, bade fair to settle itself in a manner satisfactory to all. Consequently, neither slavery nor the slave-trade is specifically mentioned in the delegates’ credentials of any of the States, nor in Randolph’s, Pinckney’s, or Hamilton’s plans, nor in Paterson’s propositions. Indeed, the debate from May 14 to June 19, when the Committee of the Whole reported, touched the subject only in the matter of the ratio of representation of slaves. With this same exception, the report of the Committee of the Whole contained no reference to slavery or the slave-trade, and the twenty-three resolutions of the Convention referred to the Committee of Detail, July 23 and 26, maintain the same silence.
The latter committee, consisting of Rutledge, Randolph, Gorham, Ellsworth, and Wilson, reported a draft of the Constitution August 6, 1787. The committee had, in its deliberations, probably made use of a draft of a national Constitution made by Edmund Randolph.1 One clause of this provided that “no State shall lay a duty on imports;” and, also, “1. No duty on exports. 2. No prohibition on such inhabitants as the United States think proper to admit. 3. No duties by way of such prohibition.” It does not appear that any reference to Negroes was here intended. In the extant copy, however, 59notes in Edward Rutledge’s handwriting change the second clause to “No prohibition on such inhabitants or people as the several States think proper to admit.”2 In the report, August 6, these clauses take the following form:—
“Article VII. Section 4. No tax or duty shall be laid by the legislature on articles exported from any state; nor on the migration or importation of such persons as the several states shall think proper to admit; nor shall such migration or importation be prohibited.”3
Resources
Notes and References
- W. E. B. Du Bois, “The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America 1638-1870” (1893), Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Bombay and Calcuta.
See Also
Further Reading
- George William Alexander. Letters on the Slave-Trade, Slavery, and Emancipation, etc. London, 1842. (Contains Bibliography.)
- Robert G. Harper. Argument against the Policy of Reopening the African Slave Trade. Atlanta, Ga., 1858.
- Debate on a Motion for the Abolition of the Slave-Trade, in the House of Commons, on Monday and Tuesday, April 18 and 19, 1791. Reported in detail. London, 1791.
- Sir W.G. Ouseley. Notes on the Slave Trade; with Remarks on the Measures adopted for its Suppression. London, 1850.
- Henry C. Carey. The Slave Trade, Domestic and Foreign: why it Exists and how it may be Extinguished. Philadelphia, 1853.
- Marion J. McDougall. Fugitive Slaves. Boston, 1891.
- Friends. Extracts and Observations on the Foreign Slave Trade. Philadelphia, 1839.
- L.W. Spratt. Speech upon the Foreign Slave Trade, before the Legislature of South Carolina. Columbia, S.C., 1858.
Comments
5 responses to “Slavery Proposition”
It’s not clear the Constitution protected slavery. That was clearly the political compromise reached, but the document itself is silent on that point. It specifically avoids any explicit taint of the word slavery (preferring the slightly less odious “other persons”) and the only operative provisions were the 1808 right to ban the importation of other persons (understood to be the ban on the slave trade) and the fugitive clause (understood as the fugitive slave clause), plus the apportionment compromise. So while it was the understanding of the original parties that slavery was to be left in place, the Constitution did not codify that arrangement. It would have been legally appropriate (if politically impossible) to ban slavery just by operation of the Constitution as it stood at the dawn of the 19th century.
You characterize Article V’s “Provided that no Amendment…” as a “1808 right to ban the importation of other persons”. Don’t you think a more accurate reading of that provision is that it codified the institution of slavery as being sacrosanct under the original Constitution, at least until 1808? It being one of three things the founders placed off limits under the Article V amendment process…
Although that was politically intended as a compromise to partially accommodate slavery, the text itself still does not mention slavery. That’s the debate – Spooner said the Constitution prohibited slavery and Garrison said it was irreparably tainted by enshrining slavery. But everybody agrees that slavery itself is not mentioned. I lean to Spooner. If you read only the document itself, without knowing the history, you would not first assume they were referring to slavery. Subsequent generations are not bound by the gentleman’s agreement between the founders to quietly ignore slavery.
PS – You’re also eliding the distinction between the trade and the institution. Although many Northerners thought slavery would die quietly without importation, the 1808 provision was about the slave trade (and the “middle passage”) rather than domestic slavery.
You overstated “everybody”; I’m a body and I think slavery is mentioned in the Constitution, in the Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3. (I also think it is mentioned at Article 1, Section 9, and again in Article V. In other words, “Migration or Importation of such Persons” actually does refer to the domestic institution of chattel slavery, in my opinion, although you are entitled to yours.)
I don’t need a history book to understand the meaning of the Fugitive Slave Clause. The clause includes some things which are not slavery, but that doesn’t mean it is not about, primarily, slavery.
You’re importing historical understanding to reach that interpretation. The document itself doesn’t acknowledge slavery by name beyond “held to service or labor” which would include convicts and some other categories beyond chattel slavery. The only way to reach your interpretation is to look at the intent of the founders, which clearly was to leave slavery in place. But the document never ratifies that gentleman’s agreement, so I’m of the view that it was not binding.
There’s no argument at all that the Constitution explicitly referenced slavery because it didn’t and doesn’t. It was always oblique, with terms like “held to service or labor” and “other persons” (both of which encompass larger groups of people than only slaves) in order to avoid explicit mention of slavery. “Everybody” agrees that the official text of the Constitution never uses the word slavery. Therefore, the debate relies on the assumption that some provision authorizes or ratifies slavery without directly using that term (which is possible, but naturally less powerful than an explicit authorization) or even using a direct synonym.
The founders relented to slavery, but the document is oblique about it. Winks and nods are not binding law.