Slavery and the Constitution

[shanek]

In another thread, DanishDynamite brought up the issue of how our founding fathers, in trying to form a free country, nonetheless allowed for slavery in the Constitution. The issue is so interesting, with many facets, that I thought it deserved its own thread.

I've been wanting to get this thread off the ground, so I just did a basic amount of research to get it going. This isn't by far all I have to say on the issue; but for now we'll just get the discussion going.

There are three clauses in the Constitution (all of which have either expired or been made irrelevant by the 13th Amendment) that directly deal with slavery. I'll deal with each in a separate post because of the length.

The first is I.2.3 (Article I Section 2 Clause 3):

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Let's parse:

We're talking about how to determine how many representatives and what portion of direct taxes each state gets.

Free persons and those bound to service for a term of years (such as those who have been convicted of a crime and are serving out their sentence) count as one person.

We don't count untaxed Indians at all.

Anyone who is left counts as 3/5ths of a person. But by process of elimination, the only people who are left are the slaves. So, slaves count as only 3/5ths of a person. Why?

Let's look at Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution for an explanation:

(By the way, I think I should point out here that Story was a vociferous opponent of slavery; but he never went outside of his Constitutional authority to fight it.)

§685: The real (and it was a very exciting) controversy was in regard to slaves, whether they should be included in the enumeration, or not. On the one hand, it was contended, that slaves were treated in the states, which tolerated slavery, as property, and not as persons. They were bought and sold, devised and transferred, like any other property. They had no civil rights, or political privileges. They had no will of their own; but were bound to absolute obedience to their masters. There was, then, no more reason for including them in the census of persons, than there would be for including any brute animals whatsoever. If they were to be represented as property, the rule should be extended, so as to embrace all other property. It would be a gross inequality to allow representation for slaves to the southern states; for that, in effect, would be, to allow to their masters a predominant right, founded on mere property. Thus, five thousand free persons, in a slave-state, might possess the same power to choose a representative, as thirty thousand free persons in a non-slave-holding state.

Okay, so the free states were arguing that counting the slaves in slave-owning states would give them unfairly high representation in Congress. They were treating them as property, but now all of a sudden they want them counted as persons? They want to have their cake and eat it, too!

The slave-owning states, of course, disagreed:

§636: On the other hand, it was contended, that slaves are deemed persons, as well as property. They partake of the qualities of both. In being compelled to labour, not for himself, but for his master; in being vendible by one master to another; and, in being subject, at all times, to be restrained in his liberty, and chastised in his body, by the will of another, the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with the irrational animals, which fall under the denomination of property. But, in being protected in his life and limbs against the violence of others, even of the master of his labour and liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others; the slave is no less evidently regarded by law, as a member of the society, and not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, and not as a mere article of property.[/b]

So, slaves do get the protection that all others get from the government acting for the common defense and general welfare, and so should count towards representation—and for the collection of direct taxes. This argument would have given the slave-owning states more representation in Congress, but they would have had to pay for it, too.

The federal constitution should, therefore, view them in the mixed character of persons and property, which was in fact their true character. It is true, that slaves are not included in the estimate of representatives in any of the states possessing them. They neither vote themselves, nor increase the vote of their masters. But it is also true, that the constitution itself does not proceed upon any ratio of merely qualified voters, either as to representatives, or as to electors of them. If, therefore, those, who are not voters, are to be excluded from the enumeration or census, a similar inequality will exist in the apportionment among the states. For the representatives are to be chosen by those, who are qualified voters, for the most numerous branch of the state legislature; and the qualifications in different states are essentially different; and, indeed, are in no two states exactly alike. The constitution itself, therefore, lays down a principle, which requires; that no regard shall be had to the policy of particular states, towards their own inhabitants. Why should not the same principle apply to slaves, as to other persons, who were excluded as voters in the states?

So, for example, if you're going to exclude slaves because they can't vote, can you also exclude children from the enumeration because they can't, either?

§637. Some part of this reasoning may not be very satisfactory; and especially the latter part of it. The distinction between a free person, who is not a voter, but who is, in no sense, property, and a slave, who is not a voter, and who is, in every practical sense, property, is, and for ever must form, a sound ground for discriminating between them in every constitution of government.

§638. It was added, that the idea was not entirely a just one, that representation relates to persons only, and not to property. Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property, than of the persons of individuals. The one, as well as the other, may, therefore, be considered as proper to be represented by those, who are charged with the government. And, in point of fact, this view of the subject constituted the basis of some of the representative departments in several of the state governments.

He then goes on for a couple paragraphs about the nature of representation by property amounts and why our founders didn't want that, and then:

§641. The truth is, that the arrangement adopted by the constitution was a matter of compromise and concession, confessedly unequal in its operation, but a necessary sacrifice to that spirit of conciliation, which was indispensable to the union of states having a great diversity of interests, and physical condition, and political institutions. It was agreed, that slaves should be represented, under the mild appellation of "other persons," not as free persons, but only in the proportion of three fifths. The clause was in substance borrowed from the resolve, passed by the continental congress on the 18th of April, 1783, recommending the states to amend the articles of confederation in such manner, that the national expenses should be defrayed out of a common treasury, "which shall be supplied by the several states, in proportion to the whole number of white, or other free inhabitants, of every age, sex, and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons, not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians, not paying taxes, in each state." In order to reconcile the non-slave-holding states to this provision, another clause was inserted, that direct taxes should be apportioned in the same manner as representatives. So, that, theoretically, representation and taxation might go pari passu. This provision, however, is more specious than solid; for while, in the levy of direct taxes, it apportions them on three fifths of persons not free, it, on the other hand, really exempts the other two fifths from being taxed at all, as property. Whereas, if direct taxes had been apportioned, as upon principle they ought to be, according to the real value of property within the state, the whole of the slaves would have been taxable, as property.

By the way, just as a side argument: this gives lie to the claim that direct taxes are against property and not people. However much Story might have felt they should be attached to property, the Constitution as written clearly ties direct taxes to people. If taxation without representation is so horrible, then that must mean that proper taxation must be correlated with representation. Ergo, an Income Tax is a direct tax, and one that is not apportioned among the states. That's a bit of a digression, but it does show how these issues are related and interconnected.

But a far more striking inequality has been disclosed by the practical operations of the government. The principle of representation is constant, and uniform; the levy of direct taxes is occasional, and rare.

Oh, if only that were true nowadays! But I digress again...

In the course of forty years, no more than three direct taxes have been levied; and those only under very extraordinary and pressing circumstances. The ordinary expenditures of the government are, and always have been, derived from other sources. Imports upon foreign importations have supplied, and will generally supply, all the common wants; and if these should not furnish an adequate revenue, excises are next resorted to, as the surest and most convenient mode of taxation. Direct taxes constitute the last resort; and (as might have been foreseen) would never be laid, until other resources had failed.

Man, I wonder if they knew how good they had it...but enough digressions; back to the issue:

§642. Viewed in its proper light, as a real compromise, in a case of conflicting interests, for the common good, the provision is entitled to great praise for its moderation, its aim at practical utility, and its tendency to satisfy the people, that the Union, framed by all, ought to be dear to all, by the privileges it confers, as well as the blessings it secures. It had a material influence in reconciling the southern states to other provisions in the constitution, and especially to the power of making commercial regulations by a mere majority, which was thought peculiarly to favour the northern states. It has sometimes been complained of, as a grievance; but he, who wishes well to his country, will adhere steadily to it, as a fundamental policy, which extinguishes some of the most mischievous sources of all political divisions, those founded on geographical positions, and domestic institutions. It did not, however, pass the convention without objection. Upon its first introduction, it was supported by the votes of nine states against two. In subsequent stages of the discussion, it met with some opposition; and in some of the state conventions it was strenuously resisted. The wish of every patriot ought now to be, requiescat in pace.

In other words: no, the Constitution isn't a perfect document, and they knew it wasn't. That's why they put in a way to amend it. But the idea was to get the country going, first, and to do that they had to compromise between the issues of the different states.

More about this compromise can be found in Federalist #54 by James Madison:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa54.htm

Although a lot of people say it was Amendment XIV Section 2 that actually changed this, I contend that it was made irrelevant by the 13th Amendment. If slavery and involuntary servitude are outlawed, and therefore nonexistant, then once you rule out free men, those bound to service for a term, and untaxed Indians, there's simply nobody left.

 

[shanek]

Our next clause is I.9.1:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article I Section 8 is the section that is basically a list of everything Congress has the power to do. Clause 3 gives them the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.

Article I Section 9 is basically a list of exceptions to Article I Section 8. In other words, they can do anything in Article I Section 8 as long as it isn't prohibited by Article I Section 9. In this case, the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations is given an exception.

In this case, it's referring to the slave trade. Once again, we turn to Joseph Story for a detailed explanation:

§1327. The corresponding clause of the first draft of the constitution was in these words: "No tax, or duty, shall be laid, &c. 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." In this form it is obvious, that the migration and importation of slaves, which was the sole object of the clause, was in effect perpetuated, so long, as any state should choose to allow the traffic. The subject was afterwards referred to a committee, who reported the clause substantially in its present shape; except that the limitation was the year one thousand eight hundred, instead of one thousand eight hundred and eight. The latter amendment was substituted by the vote of seven states against four; and as thus amended, the clause was adopted by the like vote of the same states.

So, instead of giving Congress the power to ban it outright, and instead of prohibiting them from banning it forever, they prohibit Congress from banning it for 20 years. As Story points out, even this compromise put the US well ahead of other nations with regards to the issue of slavery:

§1328. It is to the honour of America, that she should have set the first example of interdicting and abolishing the slave-trade, in modern times. It is well known, that it constituted a grievance, of which some of the colonies complained before the revolution, that the introduction of slaves was encouraged by the crown, and that prohibitory laws were negatived. It was doubtless to have been wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had been allowed to be put into immediate operation, and had not been postponed for twenty years. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction, or for the manner, in which it is expressed. It ought to be considered, as a great point gained in favour of humanity, that a period of twenty years might for ever terminate, within the United States, a traffic, which has so long, and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy. Even within this period, it might receive a very considerable discouragement, by curtailing the traffic between foreign countries; and it might even be totally abolished by the concurrence of a few states. "Happy," it was then added by the Federalist, "would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren." Let it be remembered, that at this period this horrible traffic was carried on with the encouragement and support of every civilized nation of Europe; and by none with more eagerness and enterprize, than by the parent country. America stood forth alone, uncheered and unaided, in stamping ignominy upon this traffic on the very face of her constitution of government, although there were strong temptations of interest to draw her aside from the performance of this great moral duty.

But, as these things go, not everyone was happy with it:

§1329. Yet attempts were made to pervert this clause into an objection against the constitution, by representing it on one side, as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice; and on another, as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations to America. Nothing, perhaps, can better exemplify the spirit and manner, in which the opposition to the constitution was conducted, than this fact. It was notorious, that the postponement of an immediate abolition was indispensable to secure the adoption of the constitution. It was a necessary sacrifice to the prejudices and interests of a portion of the Southern states. The glory of the achievement is scarcely lessened by its having been gradual, and by steps silent, but irresistible.

And what happened when Congress did get the power to ban it?

§1330. Congress lost no time in interdicting the traffic, as far as their power extended, by a prohibition of American citizens carrying it on between foreign countries. And as soon, as the stipulated period of twenty years had expired, congress, by a prospective legislation to meet the exigency, abolished the whole traffic in every direction to citizens and residents. Mild and moderate laws were, however, found insufficient for the purpose of putting an end to the practice; and at length congress found it necessary to declare the slave-trade to be a piracy, and to punish it with death. Thus it has been elevated in the catalogue of crimes to this 'bad eminence' of guilt; and has now annexed to it the infamy, as well as the retributive justice, which belongs to an offence equally against the laws of God and man, the dictates of humanity, and the solemn precepts of religion. Other civilized nations are now alive to this great duty; and by the noble exertions of the British government, there is now every reason to believe, that the African slave-trade will soon become extinct; and thus another triumph of virtue would be obtained over brutal violence and unfeeling cruelty.

Yep: They did so. By the way, Story was one of the Justices who presided over the Amistad case (in fact, if memory serves, he delivered the opinion on it), and the crux of that case was, if the slaves did indeed come from Africa, then their enslavement was a violation of the ban on the slave trade. It was found to be so, and these slaves sent back home to Africa.

§1331. This clause of the constitution, respecting the importation of slaves, is manifestly an exception from the power of regulating commerce. Migration seems appropriately to apply to voluntary arrivals, as importation does to involuntary arrivals; and so far, as an exception from a power proves its existence, this proves, that the power to regulate commerce applies equally to the regulation of vessels employed in transporting men, who pass from place to place voluntarily, as to those, who pass involuntarily.

 

[shanek]

Finally, we move on to IV.2.3:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

This is the basis of the Fugitive Slave Acts, the first of which passed in 1793. Back to you-know-who:

§1805. This clause was introduced into the constitution solely for the benefit of the slave-holding states, to enable them to reclaim their fugitive slaves, who should have escaped into other states, where slavery was not tolerated. The want of such a provision under the confederation was felt, as a grievous inconvenience, by the slave-holding states, since in many states no aid whatsoever would be allowed to the owners; and sometimes indeed they met with open resistance. In fact, it cannot escape the attention of every intelligent reader, that many sacrifices of opinion and feeling are to be found made by the Eastern and Middle states to the peculiar interests of the south. This forms no just subject of complaint; but it should for ever repress the delusive and mischievous notion, that the south has not at all times had its full share of benefits from the Union.

§1806. It is obvious, that these provisions for the arrest and removal of fugitives of both classes contemplate summary ministerial proceedings, and not the ordinary course of judicial investigations, to ascertain, whether the complaint be well founded, or the claim of ownership be established beyond all legal controversy. In cases of suspected crimes the guilt or innocence of the party is to be made out at his trial; and not upon the preliminary inquiry, whether he shall be delivered up. All, that would seem in such cases to be necessary, is, that there should be prima facie evidence before the executive authority to satisfy its judgment, that there is probable cause to believe the party guilty, such as upon an ordinary warrant would justify his commitment for trial. And in the cases of fugitive slaves there would seem to be the same necessity of requiring only prima facie proofs of ownership, without putting the party to a formal assertion of his rights by a suit at the common law. Congress appear to have acted upon this opinion; and, accordingly, in the statute upon this subject have authorized summary proceedings before a magistrate, upon which he may grant a warrant for a removal.

A bit of history on the enforcement of this:

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 held that a person helping a slave escape to a free territory could be fined $500. In response, many free states passed "personal liberty laws" which prohibited their executives from enforcing this act without making the slave catcher prove that the person was, in fact, a fugitive owned by a slave owner. This meant that, for those proceedings, the alleged slave was considered to be a person for the purposes of having a trial by jury. And, as might be expected, as the juries came from the state where the crime had been committed (under III.2.3), juries tended to use their power of nullification to refuse to send the slave back to his owner.

(Interestingly, some other free states actively enforced the law, under the (mistaken) presumption that fugitive slaves escaping into their state might take jobs away from white men. After all, we can't have "them" moving here, now, can we?)

Anyway, in 1842, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court ruled these "personal liberty laws" unconstitutional. The court ruled that they couldn't override the law, but it also ruled that they couldn't be compelled to enforce it. So the free states that had "personal liberty laws" changed them to laws telling their executives not to do anything at all about fugitive slaves. This led directly to the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, which charged the Federal marshals with tracking down these fugitive slaves. It also fined any official in any state $1,000 if he did not act to arrest and turn over a fugitive slave merely on a sworn testimony of ownership; they didn't get their jury trial anymore. It also made helping a slave escape a crime punishable by $1,000 and six months in jail. But since these people did get jury trials, nullification set many of them free.

More than any other single factor, the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution, and the Fugitive Slave Acts passed in its persuance, preserved the horrible and despicable practice of slavery. Without it, slave owners would have had to track down and retrieve their slaves at their own expense, and do it with hundreds if not thousands of people helping them to escape. Slaves could have gained their freedom more simply, by going to a free state, instead of having to make it all the way to Canada. This would have made it much, much more expensive to own slaves (which by 1850 were so expensive anyway that they were more about status than about getting workers), and when slaves started seeing how easy it was to become free, would have left in droves faster than you can say "Berlin Wall."

The Thirteenth Amendment made this clause competely irrelevant.

 

[CFLarsen]

People are allowed to enslave other people, based on whether these people are taxed or not? What kind of sick, inhumane argument is that?

It's a circular argument: It's OK to have slaves, because slaves are not taxed. Why are slaves not taxed? Because they are slaves. Which means that it is OK to make them slaves. After all, they are not taxed...

Only thing is, nobody asked the slaves if they wanted to be slaves. Nobody created a society where it was possible for them to start off as free men. Nope, they started off as slaves.

It doesn't matter what happened after the Constitution was written. That is just pathetic apologetics for slavery.

What it comes down to is this: Did the Founding Fathers consider black people equal to white people?

The answer is a resounding NO.

 

[kedo1981]

The Declaration of Independence spelled the death blow to slavery!
I contend that Thomas Jefferson knew full well the words “All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights” would open a door that could not be closed, and had hopes (I can’t know what he had hopes for; it’s poetic license, so bite me) that slavery in this country would wither and die. Remember TJ was one of the smartest humans in all of history.
I believe he would have realized that with any half way intelligent person would read “all men are created equal” and have to ask them selves the question “ well what about the slaves?” a question, once asked, could not be “un-asked”.
Remember what happened just about a decade after the ratification of the constitution; the importation of Africans was made capital offence, white people were hung for doing it.
Sure there’s some screwed up things in the constitution but Jefferson had already stabbed the institution of slavery in the heart with TDI.

 

[hgc]

The Declaration of Independence spelled the death blow to slavery!
I contend that Thomas Jefferson knew full well the words “All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights” would open a door that could not be closed, and had hopes (I can’t know what he had hopes for; it’s poetic license, so bite me) that slavery in this country would wither and die. Remember TJ was one of the smartest humans in all of history.
I believe he would have realized that with any half way intelligent person would read “all men are created equal” and have to ask them selves the question “ well what about the slaves?” a question, once asked, could not be “un-asked”.
Remember what happened just about a decade after the ratification of the constitution; the importation of Africans was made capital offence, white people were hung for doing it.
Sure there’s some screwed up things in the constitution but Jefferson had already stabbed the institution of slavery in the heart with TDI.

Oh yeah! That was it. It just took 80 years to come true. And what a coincidence that it was also in the midst of a civil war between the free states and the slave states.

Not only does the Declaration have no force in law, but plenty of people read it over the decades, with the "created equal" text, and thought no worse of slavery for the experience.

 

[Hutch]

Well, shane, so far you've generated one insult post and two derail posts. Not bad, even for your lofty standards.

Still, I'm not sure what there is to discuss. You've provided a fairly accurate history of why slavery is in the Constitution and what put it there....so where are we suppossed to go from that?

Might have been better in the History section.

 

[crimresearch]

Agreed.

 

[shanek]

I contend that Thomas Jefferson knew full well the words “All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights” would open a door that could not be closed, and had hopes (I can’t know what he had hopes for; it’s poetic license, so bite me) that slavery in this country would wither and die. Remember TJ was one of the smartest humans in all of history.

I'm inclined to agree.

No body wishes more than I do to see such proofs as you exhibit, that nature has given to our black brethren, talents equal to those of the other colors of men, and that the appearance of a want of them is owing merely to the degraded condition of their existence, both in Africa & America. I can add with truth, that no body wishes more ardently to see a good system commenced for raising the condition both of their body & mind to what it ought to be, as fast as the imbecility of their present existence, and other circumstances which cannot be neglected, will admit.

—letter to Benjamin Bannaker, Aug. 30, 1791

Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunities for the development of their genius were not favorable, and those of exercising it still less so. I expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others. On this subject they are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making towards their re-establishment on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family. I pray you therefore to accept my thanks for the many instances you have enabled me to observe of respectable intelligence in that race of men, which cannot fail to have effect in hastening the day of their relief; and to be assured of the sentiments of high and just esteem and consideration which I tender to yourself with all sincerity.

—letter to Henri Gregoire, February 25, 1809

I think it's clear that he felt that their enlightenment and freedom was inevitable.

I believe he would have realized that with any half way intelligent person would read “all men are created equal” and have to ask them selves the question “ well what about the slaves?” a question, once asked, could not be “un-asked”.

And let's not forget this paragraph in his original draft, removed at the insistence of the southern states:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce; and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Remember what happened just about a decade after the ratification of the constitution; the importation of Africans was made capital offence, white people were hung for doing it.

Actually, as I noted above, that was in 1808, the first year Congress was authorized to do so.

 

[kedo1981]

Slavery in the USA lasted about a lifetime, show me one other nation that it had so short a span

 

[shanek]

Well, shane, so far you've generated one insult post and two derail posts. Not bad, even for your lofty standards.

I dunno...I think kedo's post was a good one to start up the discussion.

I'm mostly waiting for DanishDynamite; he was the one who asked about this issue in another thread.

Still, I'm not sure what there is to discuss. You've provided a fairly accurate history of why slavery is in the Constitution and what put it there....so where are we suppossed to go from that?

There are a lot of issues we can discuss.

There's the point about I.9.1 sounding the death knell for the slave trade; for if America ceases its involvement in the slave trade it becomes a big blow to its profitability. This led to some rather strained relations with Spain, particularly during the Van Buren administration.

There's the issue of compromise; how our founders were able to lay the seeds for slavery's eventual destruction (which the Civil War was not needed to do, despite hgc's asserion) while delivering a compromise amenable to the southern states.

There's Jefferson's evolving view of blacks, which I touched on above.

We could go into Jefferson's and Washington's attempts to free their own slaves and why they weren't able to do so.

This was such a radical and unprecedented move in the history of the world; I find it difficult to believe there's nothing to discuss here.

Might have been better in the History section.

Perhaps.

 

[drkitten]

Slavery in the USA lasted about a lifetime, show me one other nation that it had so short a span

Haiti? 1791-1804

 

[TragicMonkey]

Haiti? 1791-1804

Haiti had slavery before it was Haiti. It was importing slaves from the earliest settlements, and they were treated very, very badly indeed. (I'm not easily shocked by man's inhumanity to man, but the stuff that went on there was pretty terrible. Actually, the worst I've ever heard. ) It was a slave rebellion, followed by war with France, that resulted in its independence.

 

[drkitten]

Haiti had slavery before it was Haiti.

The United States had slavery before it was the United States, too That was partly my point in response to kedo's ill-reasoned post.

 

[livius drusus]

Haiti had slavery before it was Haiti.

The United States had slavery before it was the United States too, so that's not really a rebuttal to new drkitten's rebuttal.

 

[shanek]

I'd have to agree with drkitten; it did take longer for the US as a whole to abolish slavery than Haiti did.

However, let's not compare apples and accordians. Remember that the US is a republic of independent and sovereign states (well, at least up until the Civil War it was). If you want a real credit for this honor, Vermont, with the ratification of its Constitution in 1777, became the first government in the history of the world to abolish slavery. It never had it. It abolished the slaves before Haiti, and wasn't even a slave-owning government for even a single day.

Massachusetts didn't ratify its Constitution until 1780; the delay was because it originally had a clause supporting slavery. Their 1780 Constitution declared all men free. The Quock Walker case in 1783 confirmed that this meant that slavery was prohibited in Massachusetts.

New Hampshire's Constitution, adopted that same year, used almost the same language as the Mass. Constitution. Although there was never a court decision regarding it, it was generally understood that it abolished slavery, as the Constitution was adopted after the Quock Walker decision.

And, of course, all of this was before the Constitution went into effect in 1789.

 

[crimresearch]

More than one colony had slavery before and after they became independent nations.

Not all of them incorporated into their Constitutions a clause that prevented the slave holders from gaining a majority in the legislature and forcing slavery on the whole country.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The United States had slavery before it was the United States too, so that's not really a rebuttal to new drkitten's rebuttal.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. The thing about Haiti is that there wasn't, as in the US, 1) Revolution, followed by 2) abolition of slavery. The revolution was the abolition of slavery--it was a slave revolt. It just took time, from the initial slaughter-the-settlers stage in the 1790's until finally sending France packing in 1804 for the revolution to fully succeed. There was no point in that interval where the revolutionaries decided to abolish slavery: it was the entire point of the enterprise.

 

[CFLarsen]

People,

Try to answer this question:

Did the Founding Fathers consider black people equal to white people?

Just yes or no.

 

[drkitten]

Originally posted by CFLarsen and modified by myself
People,

Try to answer this question:

Do Danes believe in God?

Just yes or no.

Trying to answer "yes" or "no" about what a group of people believed is stupid.

Trying to determine whether the answer should be "yes" or "no" based on a political compromise achieved by the various members of the group is even stupider.

Some Founding Fathers did. Some did not. Some did, but found it politically inadvisable to hold out for their beliefs. Some probably didn't have an opinion on the question at all.