The Constitutional Convention debated the issue of slavery over almost a week. In the end, the delegates reluctantly agreed to allow slavery for the sake of South Carolina and Georgia. We moderns and post-moderns can debate all we want, but the case is that the Convention came very close to abolishing slavery. Its acceptance of the “peculiar institution” was an anomaly of epic proportions.
Two years beyond the chaos of 2020, it’s become orthodox belief for many—especially on the radical Left but many on what I would call the innocent Left as well—to dismiss the entirety of the American Founding and the American Founders as nothing more than a slavocracy to be run by wealthy plantation owners. To be sure, much of this sea-change in attitude has come from the controversial but, admittedly, successful campaign by The New York Times with its 1619 Project, begun in 2019. When that project came out, I had the chance to analyze its underlying flaws and its wrong assumptions in this essay at The Imaginative Conservative.
Though the Times said nothing critically new about slavery—the New Left has been saying such things since the mid to late 1960s—the paper’s claims, now understood by many as simply the truth, are a bit shocking as well as disconcerting. In particular, I would note, the 1619 Project firmly centers American History around Virginia’s history, relegating that of, say, New England, New York, or New Mexico to something only marginally quaint. Where, in all of this pro-slavery hysteria, are we to find the immigrants, the American Indians, etc. Given the demanding contributions of, say, Philadelphia Quakers and abolitionists to thwart and destroy the system of slavery, the historian is forced to throw up his or her hands in extreme frustration. America, after all, has a stronger tradition of anti-slavery—especially given the circumstances of the Civil War—than of slavery. I am indebted, on this point, to my excellent colleague at Hillsdale, Miles Smith IV, who had made this point repeatedly on social media.
Even during the American Founding, however, the question of slavery was a difficult—if not impossible—one. Of course, of the four organic laws—the Declaration (which condemns slavery and proclaims the natural right of ALL); the Articles of Confederation; the Northwest Ordinance (which forbids slavery in the territories); and the Constitution (which allows for slavery in three specific instances)—only the Articles of Confederation are neutral on the subject, though, given the passage of the Northwest Ordinance, one might very well interpret the Articles as anti-slavery. Thus, the sum documentary evidence of the Founding seems to be adamantly anti-slavery. Even the Constitution’s three compromises on the issue—counting a slave as 3/5 of a person, allowing the importation of Africans until, at the least, January 1, 1808, and the fugitive slave clause—seem to anticipate its demise rather than promote its health. Of these three mentions, only the fugitive slave clause is troubling, but it wouldn’t be enforced with any seriousness until 1850, and, then, with absolutely dire consequences for the institution and the country.
Slavery, as an institution, declined rapidly between 1763 and 1793, the exact period of the American Founding, and many of the Founders understandably believed that God or nature had decreed a proper death for the inhumanity of it all. Its decline came from a strong surge in feelings about Natural Rights and Natural Law. Common Law, of course, had outlawed slavery as an abomination, but the spread of Revolutionary ideas, leading up to the Revolution itself, strongly influenced slave holders to manumit their slaves, according to the principles of nature itself. Only South Carolina and Georgia, in the time period, continued to promote slavery as an institution. The other eleven states, especially through voluntary associations, such as the Abolitionist movement, saw dramatic decreases in the institution as a whole, and many northern states would soon ban slavery completely.
During the debates, though, numerous founding fathers expressed their disgust with slavery. As Madison reports:
Mr. KING wished to know what influence the vote just passed was meant have on the succeeding part of the Report, concerning the admission of slaves into the rule of Representation. He could not reconcile his mind to the article if it was to prevent objections to the latter part. The admission of slaves was a most grating circumstance to his mind, & he believed would be so to a great part of the people of America. He had not made a strenuous opposition to it heretofore because he had hoped that this concession would have produced a readiness which had not been manifested, to strengthen the Genl. Govt. and to mark a full confidence in it. The Report under consideration had by the tenor of it, put an end to all those hopes. In two great points the hands of the Legislature were absolutely tied. The importation of slaves could not be prohibited-exports could not be taxed. Is this reasonable? What are the great objects of the Genl. System? 1. defence agst. foreign invasion. 2. agst. internal sedition. Shall all the States then be bound to defend each; & shall each be at liberty to introduce a weakness which will render defence more difficult? Shall one part of the U. S. be bound to defend another part, and that other part be at liberty not only to increase its own danger, but to withhold the compensation for the burden? If slaves are to be imported shall not the exports produced by their labor, supply a revenue the better to enable the Genl. Govt. to defend their masters? -There was so much inequality & unreasonableness in all this, that the people of the Northern States could never be reconciled to it. No candid man could undertake to justify it to them. He had hoped that some accomodation wd. have taken place on this subject; that at least a time wd. have been limited for the importation of slaves. He never could agree to let them be imported without limitation & then be represented in the Natl. Legislature. Indeed he could so little persuade himself of the rectitude of such a practice, that he was not sure he could assent to it under any circumstances. At all events, either slaves should not be represented, or exports should be taxable.
Not alone, Governor Morris said something quite similar, and in equal anger:
Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to insert “free” before the word inhabitants. Much he said would depend on this point. He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people, with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. & the other States having slaves. Travel thro’ ye. whole Continent & you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance & disappearance of slavery. The moment you leave ye. E. Sts. & enter N. York, the effects of the institution become visible, passing thro’ the Jerseys & entering Pa. every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed south wdly & every step you take thro’ ye. great region of slaves presents a desert increasing, with ye. increasing proportion of these wretched beings. Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The Houses in this city [Philada.] are worth more than all the wretched slaves which cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa. or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice. He would add that Domestic slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of Aristocracy. And What is the proposed compensation to the Northern States for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every impulse of humanity. They are to bind themselves to march their militia for the defence of the S. States; for their defence agst. those very slaves of whom they complain. They must supply vessels & seamen in case of foreign Attack. The Legislature will have indefinite power to tax them by excises, and duties on imports: both of which will fall heavier on them than on the Southern inhabitants; for the bohea tea used by a Northern freeman, will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which consists of nothing more than his physical subsistence and the rag that covers his nakedness. On the other side the Southern States are not to be restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched Africans, at once to increase the danger of attack, and the difficulty of defence; nay they are to be encouraged to it by an assurance of having their votes in the Natl. Govt. increased in proportion, and are at the same time to have their exports & their slaves exempt from all contributions for the public service. Let it not be said that direct taxation is to be proportioned to representation. It is idle to suppose that the Genl. Govt. can stretch its hand directly into the pockets of the people scattered over so vast a Country. They can only do it through the medium of exports imports & excises. For what then are all these sacrifices to be made? He would sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all the negroes in the U. States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution.
The Constitutional Convention debated the issue of slavery over almost a week. From August 8 through August 13, the convention raged. In the end, though, the delegates reluctantly agreed to allow slavery for the sake of South Carolina and Georgia. We moderns and post-moderns can debate all we want, but the case is, the convention came very close to abolishing slavery. Its acceptance of the “peculiar institution” was—to be sure—an anomaly of epic proportions. For better or worse (ok, for worse), the convention voted to allow slavery in order to incorporate South Carolina and Georgia. For some, such as Virginia’s George Mason, the Constitutional provision of slavery was enough to become an Anti-Federalist.
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image is “The Captive Slave” (1827) by John Simpson, and is in the public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
Thanks, Bradley
Some years ago I read David McCollugh’s, “John Adams” biography as thru his many correspondences. I don’t recall Adams, who was at the center of the revolution, supporting slavery. This 1619 project probably addresses this absence but I am pretty perplexed.
I just looked up John C. Calhoun’s speech on the Oregon bill. He characterized the Northwest Ordinance as erroneous, though on first read I wouldn’t quite say he characterized it as an act of Northern aggression, as I think James B. McPherson contended in Battle Cry of Freedom. It’s possible that Calhoun made that claim elsewhere, and that’s the source of McPherson’s contention.
In any event, McPherson stacks up a considerable mountain of evidence against the claims of Confederate apologists that slavery was not a proximate cause of secession and the war (although I do think the right of secession was implied). That’s why I often say, “I’d like to thank the Slave Power for giving states’ rights a bad name.”
Ken, Would you consider me hostile if I referred to the North as the “self-righteous power”? I would also like to point out your typo error, its James M. McPherson not James B. . The war ended in 1865, we Southerners lost. That’s a fact. Slavery did play a part If you consider it a prime cause good for you. But show me if you will where in the Constitution the South had to provide reason for leaving the Union. It would appear that States Rights are returning.
Referring to the North is more passive aggressive than hostile. Also….nope. South Carolina ratified and was party to The Articles of Confederation. They then ratified and were party to the transfer of power to the US Constitution. The Articles of Confederation, or The Articles of Confederation AND PERPETUAL UNION which includes Article 13:
ARTICLE XIII….. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterward confirmed by the legislatures of every state
Amazing how history gets clearer with more knowledge.
But what about the Constitution violating the Articles’ requirement that any amendment to the Articles be ratified by all the states, not just nine, per the Constitution’s ratification requirement? So either the Constitution is invalid, or if valid, it must have totally supplanted the Articles, and then the idea of a “perpetual union” was thrown out with the Articles. And what about our very own Texas, which uniquely joined the Union through the provisions of a treaty with a foreign nation?
This post is reminiscent of what the Left usually does — obfuscate, cherry pick, and distort. In fact, retaining slavery was not about merely South Carolina and Georgia. None of the Southern republics would have joined the union had the Constitution prohibited slavery. This includes Maryland (possibly Delaware), Virginia, and North Carolina (from where my family hails, and they owned slaves). So at least five of the 13 American republics post-war would have boycotted the newly-planned union had slavery been banned in the Constitution. In fact, America would have been better off had the South created its own country as it never should have joined with the North given the huge differences in culture, economy, and other issues. There was much commentary on this at the time.
Secondly, slavery was the least concern of George Mason, and certainly was not one of the chief reasons that he became a leading Anti-Federalist. Anti-slavery apologists — as with leftwingers — like to attribute their positions via the concept in psychology called transference to others when there is no evidence to support the claim.
Thirdly, the Declaration of Independence was a political document, not a legal document. Its purpose was to inspire the American Colonists with justification for the leadership’s desire to break away. This could have been avoided had King George III not been so obtuse. As with most relationships, the Colonists’ break with the UK was years in the making.
Fourthly, I must refute the lie posted by “Ken” in his defense of the Lincoln idolater and propagandist James McPherson, and specifically in his now-refuted “Battle Cry of Freedom,” which is nothing but a radical hagiography of the fascist North and Lincoln. The evidence shows that Lincoln was the worst president in American history because he deliberately provoked a war in which 750,000 Americans died (the equivalent today would be nine million) solely in order to revoke the Founders’ vision of a nation of independent sovereign states and replace it with an un-American solitary united federation concept of which the vast majority of European and other countries employ. By doing so, Lincoln destroyed the American Republic.
On the issue of the cause of secession, which Ken admits is at least implied in the Constitution, he has plunged through the ice again. As an aside, the evidence and history shows that it was much more than implied as all the Founders supported the concept, and would have never agreed to join the union had they lacked the ability to withdraw [see the New England states and the Hartford Convention, at which though they rejected secession at the time, its very existence confirmed their belief in the concept).
The deep Southern states chose to secede after decades of abuse by a northern-dominated Congress that routinely used the South to fund the federal government (80 percent of federal revenues were paid by cotton export taxes), and continually threatened the financial wherewithal of the Southern states whose economy was based largely on slavery. Though 70-90 percent of Southerners did not own slaves, the dominant plantations comprised a substantial plurality of the region’s GDP, if not a majority. It should be noted that the American colonists, and Southerners in particular, did not bring the slaves to North America, and that the vast majority of American slave traders were Northerners.
Consequently, as with all major wars, the War between the States was about economics — not slavery; nor was slavery the cause of secession. Proof of this is the fact of the Corwin Amendment, which Lincoln offered to the South, and that allowed slavery into perpetuity (this also showed that Lincoln cared nothing about slavery or the slaves, but was motivated solely by preserving the Union. Had the issue been slavery the South would have taken Lincoln up on his offer.
Moreover, the issue of the South desiring to extend slavery into the far-Western territories and states has always been a red-herring. The vast majority of this territory was arid, and there were no modern irrigation techniques available at the time. Hence, there would have been no utility in having slaves in these territories. The only exception was California, but it was overwhelmingly anti-slavery, so that would have been a non-starter.
No less than Senator Daniel Webster in one of the many debates on the subject acknowledged this inconvenient fact. The reason that the South fought for the right to extend slavery was a conceptual one in order to apply the same law and rights to other regions of the country as existed then in most of the East. In short, it made no sense to have one rule in the East, but a different one in the West.
In sum, had Lincoln been a true democrat who adhered to the Founders’ vision he would have done the right thing and let the deep South states go their separate way (the upper South seceded only after Lincoln chose to go to war). That Lincoln failed to follow the Founders’ vision by uprooting everything for which the Founders stood as outlined in the US Constitution is proof to any objective person that Lincoln was a fascist with Marxist connections (see his bountiful correspondence with Karl Marx) whose administration was laden with Marxists, such as the loathsome Charles Dana. Lincoln also obliterated the Constitution by arresting thousands of Northerners who opposed him, and his refusal to honor habeas corpus.
I would also refute Ken’s attack on the great John C. Calhoun, one of the greatest thinkers in American history. His assertions of the rights of nullification, interposition, and secession have been borne out, and now the US Sup. Ct. is in the process of restoring not only American liberty, but also “states’ rights” of which Ken is so apparently against. In fact, states’ rights — otherwise known as federalism, is the chief bulwark in the US Constitution that sets the USA apart from virtually all other countries.
To wrap, the false notion that the War between the States was about slavery is the biggest myth in American history.
Rob Brantley, J.D.
After the Revolution, even the slave states, like Virginia, passed laws making it easier to free enslaved people. These amendments allowed Washington, who came to reject slavery, to free his slaves by will. (One of the few Virginian founders who understood economics, Washington died rich, which allowed him to provide support for freedmen too old to work and to educate those too young to work.) These laws had been repealed by 1835, when Jefferson died, limiting his power to free slaves in his will, since he died deeply in debt.
In a biography of Robert E Lee (“Marse Robert,” by James C. Young, Grosett & Dunlap, 1929), The first chapter of the book deals with the Lee family history in Virginia. On page 15, it is noted that a letter to King George III was sent by the House of Burgesses in 1772, asking him to stop the slave trade. On page 16, it is noted that in 1778, the Assembly of Virginia made the importation of slaves illegal.
At some point in the book (I cannot find it now), it is noted that when the Virginia Assembly ceded the Northwest Territories to the national government in 1787 (just before the Constitutional Convention) it stipulated that the Northwest Territory be a region without slavery. Many leaders in Virginia, and in the new nation, in general, believed slavery to be a moral horror, although they did not know how to end it without destroying the economy or many other aspects of life. Just as today it is hard to end abortion on demand, it was hard to come to a practical way to end slavery.