The Founders and slavery.

[Ghostrider275452]

Originally Posted by Gtownoe

Despite them practicing a widely accepted form of cheap labor at the time, I believe the Founders were very smart men and big on freedom and liberty. I believe the Constitution to be a great document and that we have a great base government "structure."

For that I'm thankful.


Don't even feel like I need to express how I feel about slavery.

Slavery was very controversial even at the time the constitution was written.

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by Rush99

maybe you should take some history.


The Constitution of the United States was drafted in 1787, and included several provisions regarding slavery. Section 9 of Article I forbade the Federal government from banning the "importation" of persons that state law considered "proper to admit" until January 1, 1808, though a tax of ten dollars each was allowed. Article V prohibited amending those portions of Section 9 before 1808. By prohibiting changes for two decades to regulation of the slave trade, Article V effectively protected the trade until 1808, giving the States 20 years to resolve this issue. During that time, planters in states of the Lower South imported tens of thousands of slaves, more than during any previous two decades in colonial history.
As further protection for slavery, the delegates approved Section 2 of Article IV, which prohibited states from freeing slaves who fled to them from another state, and required the return of chattel property to owners.
In a section negotiated by James Madison of Virginia, Section 2 of Article I designated "other persons" (slaves) to be added to the total of the state's free population, at the rate of three-fifths of their total number, to establish the state's official population for the purposes of apportionment of Congressional representation and federal taxation. This increased the power of southern states in Congress for decades, affecting national policies and legislation.The planter elite dominated the southern Congressional delegations and the United States presidency for nearly 50 years

Good post ... but this doesn't make the previous post inaccurate. The constitution is in fact a grant of powers, as opposed to the limitation of power, as is so often erroneously suggested. This fact is made clear by th 10th Ammendment, which basically tells the federal government that it only has the power to do what the constitution allows it to do, with all other powers reserved to the states and the people.

With that in mind, no, the constitution did not "protect" slavery, even though the lack of power to eliminate slavery was in effect a defacto protection.

It's refreshing to see such well reasoned and educated debate from so many on this thread .. it's a positive and hopeful sign.

[Ghostrider275452]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Wow, this thread is so full of ignorance about the constitution. Its shocking.


Look, the constitution never even talks about black men a single time. Nor does the constitution allow or disallow voting by anyone at all.


There are only two parts of the constitution which even discuss slavery. One is the 3/5ths compromise, and the other is the part that says the Federal government basically will not place any restrictions on slavery for 20 years(it doesn't actually allow or disallow it, it just prevents the Federal Government from interfering with it in the states which allow it).

And the irony of the 3/5ths compromise, was that it was the slaveholders who wanted to make slaves count as 3/5ths of a person(actually, they wanted them to count as a full person). It was actually the non-slave states who wanted to make slaves not even count. Somehow that fact has gotten completely twisted around.


This idea that the constitution limited voting rights to only white men is ridiculous, and I'm getting pretty sick and tired of hearing about it. Nothing in the constitution says that. Nothing. Go read the constitution and stop spouting off bullcrap. That goes for all of you.

Slave states wanted to count slaves as a full person to increase their voting power, non slave states compromised at 3/5 person as not to give them so much power. I am sure you know this, but for those who don't.... Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by Rush99

if the constitution protected ownership of slaves what do you mean it didn't take sides?

Look, I think we are just fighting over words and their definition. The word protect generally means "to keep from being damaged" or "to help".

The question is, did the constitution help the the institution of slavery? Did the constitution keep the institution of slavery from being damaged?

In my opinion, if the constitution was helping slavery. Then it would have put in place protections to make sure slavery not only survived, but also spread. The truth is that, before the constitution was even drafted, the Northwest ordinance banned slavery from the Northwest territories. Restrictions on slave-trading were increased to their maximum level allowed in the constitution. And the day the slave-trade could be abolished, it was abolished by Thomas Jefferson. Long before the Civil War, slavery was dying across the country. And slavery would have died with or without the Civil War, and with or without an amendment to the constitution.

If you look at history, you'll realize that if the constitution supposedly was designed to "help slavery", it did a really terrible job.

In my view of history, I think the constitution intentionally created a system which everyone knew would be antagonistic towards slavery in the future. I think most of the framers ultimately wanted to abolish slavery, but the political conditions at the time simply wouldn't allow it. So the constitution was designed in a way to allow them to "kick the can down the road". But which everyone knew to some extent what the future would hold.

I mean, for what other purpose is the specific 20-year prohibition of the interference of the slave trade? If the constitution really "protected" slavery. Why would it only prevent interference for 20 years? Why not forever? If the constitution really was intended to "help" slavery. Wouldn't it have looked a lot more like the confederate constitution?

Originally Posted by caribny

I was of the impression that the vast majority of the states still had slavery during this early post independence era.

This was clearly not a slave vs., nonslave state issue.

Look, if slavery controlled Congress in 1787. Then why was slavery banned from all of the states which were to be formed by the Northwest ordinance? The truth is that slavery was highly unpopular in many states, long before it was abolished.

What people don't understand is that, abolishing slavery isn't as simple as just passing a law and then suddenly everything is great. Slaves were usually uneducated and unskilled. To free the slaves, who had no money, no skills, and no education into a world where even free men were struggling to find even basic needs like clothing, food, water, and employment. Would have been a recipe for disaster.

Most programs to abolish slavery freed children of slaves, rather than all slaves. Then they would create programs to educate those children and teach them skills, so they would be able to take care of themselves.

The 13th amendment didn't suddenly elevate the quality of life of blacks. To a very large extent, the abolition of slavery after the Civil War made conditions for most blacks worse. This was largely offset by things like the freedmen's bureau and other organizations which were created to provide things like food, clothing, shelter, and jobs for newly freed blacks. As well as teach blacks even basic skills, like how to read and write. Most freed blacks would then become sharecroppers(which is almost like feudalism), because that was all they knew.

Freedmen's Bureau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The point is, if you understand history. You'll realize that most of the founding fathers were eager to abolish slavery. But it was simply impossible to abolish slavery in 1776 or 1787.

Trust me, if there was no Georgia or South Carolina in 1787, slavery would have been phased out by 1800 at the latest.

[MTSilvertip]

Originally Posted by Obliged Friend

Wasn't Ben Franklin a runaway slave?

Not exactly, he was apprenticed to his brother which in those days meant you served under a master of a trade trading your labor for room and board, and it was how you recieved training and skills in a trade.

Normally an apprenticeship was 7 years, then the apprentice became a journeyman, who traveled and worked with other masters for various periods of time to hone their skills until they were deemed proficent enough to become a master craftsman themselves.

You are thinking of indentured servents that traded their services for passage to the new world, and paid off their debt with their labor. Depending on the cost, the servitude could be anywhere from 3 to 10 years.
Simlar to the Company Store situation where you worked for an employer, but paid them for your rent and the only place you could buy your food and clothing was at a store owned by the company.

You bought your grocieries, and the bill was levied against your paycheck. Funny thing is, you always came out owing just a little more than you made, so you couldn't leave the job.

Slavery comes in lots of forms, and was against people of all races, creeds and nationalities.