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.

All comments are moderated and must be civil, concise, and constructive to the conversation. Comments that are critical of an essay may be approved, but comments containing ad hominem criticism of the author will not be published. Also, comments containing web links or block quotations are unlikely to be approved. Keep in mind that essays represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Imaginative Conservative or its editor or publisher.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email