SLAVERY - WordPress.com · 2014-09-13 · to make compromises to preserve the Union. Some Northern opponents of slavery also hesitated to push for national emancipation because of

SLAVERY

Could the American Revolution have ledto the end of slavery?

Viewpoint: Yes. Antislavery proponents offered reasonable and viable plansto deal with the potential economic and social problems arising from emanci-pation.

Viewpoint: No. The nascent nation, already burdened with a heavy war debt,could neither afford to compensate slave owners for the loss of their propertynor jeopardize the precarious union with an emancipation plan that wasstrongly opposed by the lower South.

The Constitution of the United States (1787), with its protection of both nat-ural rights and of slavery, contains a contradictory and perplexing mixture ofdemocracy and oppression that has generated much heated discussion con-cerning the nature of the American Revolution (1775-1783) and the principlesof the nation. Many Americans today wonder how the Founding Fathers couldignore their precious principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence(1776) and tarnish the origins of the nation by framing a Constitution that pro-tected slavery, an institution that most people recognized as evil and perni-cious. This stark contradiction between the Founders' belief in natural rightsand their racist attitudes has caused embarrassment for subsequent genera-tions of Americans. A few historians, in an attempt to ease the troubled nationalconsciousness, have made the blatantly inaccurate argument that the issue ofslavery played only a nominal role at the Constitutional Convention.

Although reputable scholars no longer hold to this interpretation, manystill take an apologetic view of the Founders' actions and maintain that theydid much to weaken and doom the institution of slavery. Indeed, many Ameri-cans at the time believed that slavery was already on the decline and wouldeventually die on its own. Accelerating its demise was the republican ideologyof the Revolution, which stimulated abolitionist sentiment throughout thestates in the North and upper South. This abolitionist sentiment and republi-can principles, in turn, encouraged all Northern states to enact gradual eman-cipation laws and most Southern legislatures to pass measures making iteasier for slave owners to free their bondsmen. At the national level the Con-federation Congress barred slavery from the Northwest territories, and theConstitution provided for the banning of the transatlantic slave trade as of1808. The Founders went as far as they could to end slavery, these historiansargue, without jeopardizing the Union. When delegates from the lower Souththreatened to walk out of the Constitutional Convention if the national charterdid not contain provisions protecting slavery, the Framers had no choice butto make compromises to preserve the Union. Some Northern opponents ofslavery also hesitated to push for national emancipation because of Ameri-cans' strong attachment to property rights. After all, slaves were regarded byslaveowners as private property. Destroying slavery in the South might callinto question the basis of other forms of private property in the North. Finally,burdening the young nation with an expensive, compensated emancipationwould have been the "final straw" for the already feeble and debt-riddeneconomy. 293

Other historians have dismissed these arguments as mere excuses. The federal governmenteasily could have funded a compensated emancipation through the sale of Western lands, a planthat was proposed by several liberal-minded men. These scholars assert that the Framers failedto enact such a viable emancipation plan because of their racial prejudice and their unwillingnessto sacrifice the profits produced by their human chattel. They failed to call the lower South's bluffto walk out of the Convention if the Constitution did not protect slavery. Northerners who opposeduniversal emancipation because they feared it would only encourage free blacks to migrate north-ward are equally to blame for the Constitution's "covenant with death."

Historians are not soon going to resolve this fervent debate on slavery and the Constitution.One reason historians are devoting so much attention to this topic includes perplexing problems ofproperty rights, natural rights, and states' rights that were resolved only by the Civil War (1861-1865). In addition, how one views the meaning of slavery in the U.S. experience shapes attitudestoward such current and controversial issues as affirmative action and reparations for the descen-dants of slaves.

Viewpoint:Yes. Antislavery proponentsoffered reasonable and viableplans to deal with the potentialeconomic and social problemsarising from emancipation.

Unfortunately, leaders of the Americanrebellion (1775-1783), who justified indepen-dence from British "tyranny" based on theinalienable rights of all men to "life, liberty andthe pursuit of happiness," failed to apply thissame natural-rights philosophy as the corner-stone of the new American government in 1787.It would take several generations and the deathof more than half a million men before the U.S.federal government finally upheld the princi-ples upon which it was founded and abolishedslavery.

Historians have provided many explana-tions for the failure of the Framers of the Con-stitution to end slavery: that they did notperceive slavery as a problem; that they believedit was on a natural course of extinction and,therefore, no political solutions were necessary;that delegates from the North and upper Southsought measures to abolish slavery gradually,but threats from the lower South to walk out ofthe Convention if slavery were not protecteddeterred them from pressing for such measuresin order to preserve the precarious union; thatthe embryonic nation, just emerging from acostly war and suffering from an economicdepression, could not afford a compensatedemancipation; and finally, that many Ameri-cans, both in and out of the Convention, fearedemancipation would lead to racial warfare.

However, these apologies do not hold upto careful scrutiny. Some American leaders rec-ognized slavery as a problem and took steps toabolish it. As early as 1774 the ContinentalCongress resolved to discontinue the slave

trade. Between 1777 and 1804 the Northernstate legislatures passed gradual emancipationlaws. Even the legislatures of the upper Southby 1801 had all passed laws facilitating privatemanumission of slaves. Thus, many people, inboth the North and South, realized that a sta-ble and lasting union would be difficult tomaintain as long as slavery existed.

Slavery was not dying of its own accord.Evidence shows that even in the North theprices for slaves remained high until the institu-tion was abolished. Although planters in theupper South were using fewer slaves as theyshifted from the labor-intensive cultivation oftobacco to the less physically demanding culti-vation of wheat, they could (and did) sell theirexcess slaves at a profit in the lower South. Norwas slavery becoming unprofitable in the lowerSouth; it was so lucrative, in fact, that delegatesrepresenting the region at the ConstitutionalConvention were willing to jeopardize theAmerican union to protect this institution.

Because slavery was so profitable and slaveprices were so high, most Framers did notbelieve that the young nation, already saddledwith an enormous war debt and suffering froman economic depression, could afford tofinance a compensated emancipation. Oneexception to this viewpoint was GouverneurMorris of New York, who proposed a tax toallow the federal government to purchase thefreedom of all slaves rather than to "saddle pos-terity" with a constitution that upheld slavery.Indeed, the government had a sufficient sourceof funds to finance a compensated emancipa-tion in the sale of Western lands. Estimatingthat the six hundred thousand slaves in 1790had an average value of $150, the cost to thegovernment would have been approximately$90 million. The enormous economic windfallfrom the sale of Western lands was not lost onthe Framers, either, some of whom speculatedheavily in trans-Appalachian territory. Between1785 and 1820 the federal government sold

294 HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

more than twenty million acres of land for $1an acre, much of it to wealthy, politicallywell-connected speculators. If the governmenthad raised the price to a modest $2 an acre, themoney, coupled with property taxes, could haveunderwritten a gradual compensated emancipa-tion. Such a scheme, additionally, would havebenefited thousands of slave owners in the upperSouth who were looking for financial means toease their transition to a free-labor force. Just oneyear after the constitution was ratified, Ferdi-nando Fairfax, a protege of George Washington,offered a plan for a gradual abolition with com-pensation to masters. Thus, the desire for a com-pensated general emancipation existed amongmany slave owners in the upper South, as wellthe revenue to realize it.

The argument that the nascent Americanunion was too precarious to jeopardize with afirm stand for gradual emancipation against thebelligerent determination of South Carolina andGeorgia to preserve slavery, according to histo-rian Gary B. Nash, "reeks of inevitability." Thesestates were in no position to dictate national pol-icy on slavery. Both states had far greater need ofa strong federal government than the nationalgovernment had need of them. The powerfulCreek confederacy and the Spanish in Floridawere "hemming them in" and threatening themmilitarily. Georgians were so cognizant of theirprecarious circumstances, in fact, that its ratifica-tion convention rushed to endorse the Constitu-tion without a dissenting vote and almost withoutdebate. Second, South Carolina and Georgia hadno legitimate alternative but to ratify the Consti-

tution. Many Southerners believed that even theentire South could not survive on its own, muchless two individual states. For protection, thelower South would have had to either join Cath-olic Spain's American empire or become part ofa British West Indian confederacy. The Protes-tant majority in South Carolina and Georgia,having just waged a costly and protracted war tooverthrow British tutelage, unlikely would haveaccepted either option. Finally, even if the lowerSouth rejected the Constitution, the loss of only5 percent of the nation's white populationwould not have seriously weakened the union.This fact was not lost on Northern delegates inthe Continental Congress, who showed littleconcern over a rumor in 1780 of peace termsthat included the abandonment of Georgia andSouth Carolina to Great Britain.

If Northerners truly felt this way, their del-egates should have called the lower South'sbluff to walk out of the Constitutional Conven-tion if slavery was not protected. Instead, theymade many compromises and deals with theirSouthern colleagues that protected slavery andthe slave trade. In fact, the support of slaverycan be found in no less than ten clauses in theConstitution, some of which gave generous con-cessions to supporters of the peculiar institu-tion, thereby enhancing the power of the slavestates and providing enormous protections forslavery. Northern delegates, for example, agreedto the lower South's demands that slaves becounted at least under a three-fifths ratio forpurposes of representation in Congress and toallow the importation of slaves for at least

HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 295

another twenty years. In exchange, Southernersagreed to support New England's desire for"preferential distinction in commerce" by allow-ing a simple majority to pass commercial legisla-tion. As part of this deal, South Carolinadelegate Pierce Butler introduced the fugitiveslave clause, which the Convention passed with-out debate or even a recorded vote. The clauseallowed slave owners to cross state lines in orderto retrieve their runaway slaves. Finally, theFramers worded Congress's enumerated powersin such a way as to inhibit it from "outlawingslavery or from interfering with its daily opera-tions in any state that chose to make it lawful."So, rather than maintaining the republican prin-ciples of the Revolution and removing thismalignant institution, the Framers, by strength-ening and legitimizing slavery in the Constitu-tion made a "covenant with death," accordingto abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, "and[an] agreement with Hell."

The Founding Fathers and other Americanleaders shamelessly used fear tactics andunfounded assertions to justify this "agreementwith Hell" by claiming that emancipation wouldlead to race riots and sexual chaos. Even ThomasJefferson, who wrote the phrase that "all men arecreated equal," insisted years later in his Notes onthe State of Virginia (1781), that blacks were intel-lectually inferior to whites and possessed distinc-tive traits that he concluded "will divide us intoparties and produce convulsions which willprobably never end but in the extermination ofthe one or the other race." Yet, evidence in Jef-ferson's own home region contradict thisself-serving scenario. The free black populationof Virginia increased from approximately 2,000in 1782 to 30,500 by 1810. Maryland's free blackpopulation in 1810 surpassed that of Virginia bynearly 4,000. Despite this astronomical increasein the number of free blacks in the Chesapeakearea between the end of the Revolution and1810, there were no race riots or sexual anarchy,as Jefferson and many other whites claimedwould happen with emancipation. If politicalleaders in the Southern states truly believed thatemancipation would lead to racial warfare, theywould not have passed legislation after the Revo-lution allowing slave owners to free thousands oftheir bondsmen.

Historians have concocted many groundlessexcuses to absolve the Framers for creating aConstitution that legitimized and protectedAmerican slavery while largely ignoring theirtrue motives: racial prejudice and economicself-interest. In truth, few white Americans hadany sincere compassion for black slaves during orafter the American Revolution. Most white peo-ple believed in the inherent inferiority of black

people. American laws and customs even encour-aged whites to treat blacks with contempt.

One must not forget, however, that whiteNortherners were just as racist as white South-erners. Until recently, historians have excusedthe North for the continuation of slavery afterthe Revolution because of its gradual abolitionlaws enacted between 1777 and 1804. However,most slaves in the North obtained their freedomby either joining the military or running away.Emancipation was so gradual in the North, infact, that as late as 1830 there were thirty thou-sand slaves in the "free states." Nor did North-ern whites desire universal emancipation in theUnited States, which they feared would onlyencourage free blacks to migrate northward insearch of better economic opportunities andsome semblance of social justice. This fear of ablack migration partially explains why Northerndelegates at the Constitutional Conventionoffered no objection to the fugitive slave clause.Even leading Northern abolitionists such asFrancis Allison, Benjamin Rush, AlexanderHamilton, and John Jay all owned slaves. South-ern leaders such as Jefferson, George Washing-ton, Robert Beverly, and James Wood, all ofwhom professed some reservations over slavery,also refused to free their many bondsmen dur-ing their lifetimes. The labor from their humanchattel allowed them to live in luxury, some-thing they were unwilling to give up to eitheruphold the republican principles upon whichthe United States was founded or to remove arecognized threat to national unity.

Thus, slavery remained a national problemthat required a national solution. A few progres-sive leaders in both the North and the upperSouth created and proposed viable emancipa-tion plans, but the overwhelming majorityrejected such schemes in the belief that theywould only divide the nation and abort theunion. However, political leaders failed toexamine seriously the alternative consequenceof instituting a national plan for abolishing sla-very. Equally possible is the idea that a federallysponsored general emancipation "might havebeen an integrating rather than a divisive mech-anism," argues Nash, "helping to create a genu-inely national society out of regional societiesby eliminating a rankling sore in the body poli-tic and completing a reform without whichpost-revolutionary American society couldnever be ideologically true to itself." Mostwhite leaders were either so consumed by theirracist sentiments or so wedded to the profitsfrom their slave labor that it blinded them fromseeing the advantages of a national compen-sated emancipation plan.

-KEITH KRAWCZYNSKI, AUBURNUNIVERSITY AT MONTGOMERY

296 HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

Viewpoint:No. The nascent nation, alreadyburdened with a heavy war debt,could neither afford to compensateslave owners for the loss of theirproperty nor jeopardize theprecarious union with anemancipation plan that was stronglyopposed by the lower South.

Scholars have long debated the contradictionbetween slavery and the republican principlesbehind the American Revolution (1775-1783).Two central questions are whether the Revolutionwas radical or conservative in its nature and could ithave ended slavery in the United States. Theanswer is a bifurcated one. Northern states beganto put slavery on the road to gradual extinctionwhile Southern states reinforced the institution.This sectional division on the future of slavery isgraphically revealed in the creation of the Constitu-tion of the United States (1787). The FoundingFathers, however, should not be blamed for failingto overcome this sectionalism. After all, nationalleaders in 1861 failed to achieve a peaceful solutionto the slavery question. The Framers simply facedtoo many obstacles to abolish slavery while preserv-ing the political and economic stability of thenascent nation. Still, they successfully attacked sla-very where it was weakest, thereby laying thegroundwork for its eventual extinction.

There are several legitimate reasons why theFramers did not abolish slavery nationally whendrafting the Constitution. Perhaps the most obvi-ous reason is that the federal government lackedthe money to compensate slave owners for the lossof their property. Any national emancipation planhad to include financial compensation to slave own-ers. With Americans' strong dedication to propertyrights, few political leaders would consider anemancipation plan that did not include such a pro-vision. However, the financial burdens of a pro-tracted war had left the national government withan enormous debt. The worthless paper moneyCongress printed to pay off this debt only added tothe fiscal crisis. A proposal to give Congress thepower to raise an impost duty to help pay off thenational debt failed to pass Congress. Meanwhile,the nation spiraled into a postwar economicdepression that led to rising unemployment,decreasing wages, widespread farm foreclosures,and social unrest in both the cities and countryside.The weak position of the United States after thewar, moreover, placed it at the mercy of Europeanpowers who were attempting to curtail its eco-nomic growth and western expansion.

Therefore, to say that the national governmentcould not afford the cost of a national emancipa-

tion plan is not an excuse. The United States in thelate 1780s lacked the authority and ability to raiseadequate revenue to pay off the national debt, sohow could it afford to pay millions of dollars toslave owners for the loss of their property:1 Makingsuch a costly plan even more unlikely was the gov-ernment's need to establish a permanent army andnavy, as well as other administrative services, thatthe British had provided during the colonialperiod. With the federal government burdenedwith an enormous debt and limited in its means toraise revenue at a time when the nation was suffer-ing from an economic depression and threatenedby foreign powers, it is understandable why theFramers did not seriously contemplate a costlyemancipation plan that would have only exacer-bated serious economic, social, and diplomatictroubles. The Framers' goal at the ConstitutionalConvention (1787) was to provide solutions to thenation's many problems, not to add to them.

Indeed, the Framers failed to make a strongerattack against slavery because doing so would havedivided the union and threatened the survival ofthe young republic. Scholars once believed that theissue of slavery played a minor role in the creationof the Constitution. Recently, historians haverevised this misconception and have placed slaveryat the center of the Great Debate of 1787. Thisdebate was largely of a sectional nature between del-egates from the North and the South. Most con-tentious in this caustic controversy were thedelegates from the lower South (Georgia andSouth Carolina) who tenaciously fought to protectthe interests of slaveholders. On questions concern-ing whether to count slaves for purposes of repre-sentation in Congress and whether or not tocontinue the slave trade, delegates from the lowerSouth repeatedly warned that they would opposethe Constitution if slavery was not protected. Thisthreat was not an idle one. The lower South wouldnot have joined an antislavery Union; their intransi-gence on this issue was confirmed in 1861. Withthe United States already in a feeble and vulnerableposition both domestically and internationally, theFramers could not afford to further weaken theyoung republic by allowing two states to walk outof the Convention. Moreover, antislavery provi-sions in the Constitution might discourage West-ern territories such as Kentucky and Tennessee,both of which had a growing slave population,from eventually joining the Union. The Framersrealized that such an unwelcome chain of eventsmight prove a crippling setback to growth that wascritical for the survival of the young nation. Thefear of rupture at this critical moment led delegatesfrom the North and upper South to compromisewith their southernmost colleagues and to extendthe slave trade for twenty years and to count indi-vidual slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposesof representation. Thus, the Framers sacrificed the

HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 297

CONTENTIOUS DEBATEFmm twte$ taken by James Matiteon at the ConstitutionalConventitm in Pnilatietphia in 17$7> one cm gain insightinto 1h® atgutmate vofmmfag the issue of slavery:

Mt Sherman [Conn,]... disapproved ofthe slavt taste; yet as the states were nowposse&std of the right to import slaves, as thepublic good did not require it to be taken fromthem, ami as ft was expedient to have as fewobjection* as possible to the proposed schemeof govemhiefrt, te thought it best to leave thematter as we find it He observed fiat the aboli-tion of stevery seemed to be going on in theUnited State, and that the good sense of theseveral States would probably by degrees com-pleat it Hi urged on the Convention the neces-sity of despatching Its business.

Col/Maaon [VaJ This infernal traffic origi-nated ki the avarice of British merchants. TheBritish Government constantly checked theattempts of Virginia to put a stop to it Thepresent question concerns not the importingStates atone but the whole Union, The evil ofhaving slaves was experienced during the latewan Had slaves been treated as they mighthave been by the enemy, they would haveproved dangerous Instruments in theirhand&,... Maryland and Virginia he saidhad already prohibited the Importation ofslaves expressly. North Carolina had donethe same in substance, All this would be invain if South Carolina and Georgia be at libertyto import Hie western people are already call-ing out for slaves for their new lands, and will fillthat country with slaves if they can be got thro'South Camlina and Georgia Slavery discour-ages arts and manufactures. The poor despiselabor when performed by slaves. They preventtie immiprton of whites, who really enrich andstrengthen a country. They produce the mostpemfctows effect on manners* Every master ofstaves is torn a petty tyrant They bring thejudgement of Heaven on a country. As nationscannot bs rewarded or punished in the nextworld, they must be in this. By an inevitablechairi of causes and effects, Providence pun-ishes rmtiwal sins, by national calamities. Heteme*dtiatsomeof our eastern brethren hadfrom a lust of pin embarked In this nefarioustmfhx As to the States being in possession offit right to Import, this was the case with manyother rights, now to be property given up, Heheld it essential in every point of view that theGensml Government should have power toprevent the increase of slavery.

Mr. Ellsworth [Conn,] As he had neverowned a slave could not judge of the effects ofslavery on character: he said, however, that if itwas to be considered in a moral light we oughtto go farther and free those already in the coun-try. As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia andMaryland that it is cheaper to raise than importthem, whilst in the stekiy rice swamps foreignsupplies are necessary; if we go no further thanis urged, we shall be unjust towards SouthCarolina and Georgia Let us not intermeddle.As population increases, poor laborers will beso plenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery intime will not be a speck in our country. Provisionis already made in Connecticut for abolishing it,and the abolition has already taken place inMassachusetts. As to the danger of insurrec-tions from foreign influence, that will become amotive to kind treatment of the slaves*

Mr. Pfnckney [S.C.] If slavery be wrong, it isjustified by the example of all tie world. Hecited the case of Greece, Rome, and otherancient States; the sanction given by France,England, Holland, and other modem States, inall ages one half of mankind have been slaves.If the southern States were let afone they willprobably of themselves stop importations. Hewould himself as a citizen of South Carolinavote for it An attempt to take away the right asproposed will produce serious objections to theConstitution, which he wished to see adopted.

General Pickney [S.C.] declared it to behis firm opinion that if himself and ail his col-leagues were to sign the Constitution anduse their personal influence, it would be of noavail towards obtaining the assent of theirconstituents. South Carolina and Georgiacannot do without slaves. As to Virginia, shewill gain by stopping the importations. Herslaves wiii rise in value, and she has morethan she wants. It would be unequal torequire South Carolina and Georgia to con-federate on such unequal terms. He said theroyal assent before the Revolution had neverbeen refused to South Carolina as to Virginia.He contended that the importation of slaveswould be for the interest of the whole Union.The more slaves, the more produce toemploy the carrying trade, the more con-sumption also; and the more of this, the moreof revenue for the common treasury..,.

Source; Richard 0. Brown, Major Problems in theEra of the American Revolution, 1760-1791 (Lexing-ton, Mass.: Heath, 1992), pp. 48B-4S?,

298HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE A M E R I C A N REVOLUTION

CONTENTIOUS DEBATEFrom notes taken by James Madison at the ConstitutionalConvention in Philadelphia in 1787. one can gain insightinto the arguments concerning the issue of slavery:

Mr. Sherman [Conn.]... disapproved ofthe slave trade; yet as the States were nowpossessed of the right to import slaves, as thepublic good did not require it to be taken fromthem, and as it was expedient to have as fewobjections as possible to the proposed schemeof government, he thought it best to leave thematter as we find ft. He observed that the aboli-tion of slavery seemed to be going on in theUnited States, and that the good sense of theseveral States would probably by degrees corn-pleat it. He urged on the Convention the neces-sity of despatching its business.

Col. Mason [Va.] This infernal traffic origi-nated in the avarice of British merchants. TheBritish Government constantly checked theattempts of Virginia to put a stop to ft. Thepresent question concerns not the importingStates atone but the whole Union. The evil ofhaving slaves was experienced during the latewar. Had slaves been treated as they mighthave been by the enemy, they would haveproved dangerous instruments in theirhands.... Maryland and Virginia he saidhad already prohibited the importation ofslaves expressly. North Carolina had donethe same in substance. All this would be invain if South Carolina and Georgia be at libertyto import. The western people are already call-ing out for slaves for their new lands, and will fillthat country with slaves if they can be got thro'South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discour-ages arts and manufactures. The poor despiselabor when performed by slaves. They preventthe immigration of whites, who realty enrich andstrengthen a country. They produce the mostpernicious effect on manners. Every master ofslaves is bom a petty tyrant. They bring thejudgement of Heaven on a country. As nationscannot be rewarded or punished in the nextworld, they must be in this. By an inevitablechain of causes and effects, Providence pun-ishes national sins, by national calamities. Helamented that some of our eastern brethren hadfrom a lust of gain embarked in this nefarioustraffic. As to the States being in possession ofthe right to import, this was the case with manyother rights, now to be properly given up. Heheld it essential in every point of view that theGeneral Government should have power toprevent the increase of slavery.

Mr. Ellsworth [Conn.] As he had neverowned a slave could not judge of the effects ofslavery on character: he said, however, that if itwas to be considered in a moral light we oughtto go farther and free those already in the coun-try. As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia andMaryland that ft is cheaper to raise than importthem, whilst in the sickly rice swamps foreignsupplies are necessary; if we go no further thanis urged, we shall be unjust towards SouthCarolina and Georgia. Let us not intermeddle.As population increases, poor laborers will beso plenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery intime will not be a speck in our country. Provisionis already made in Connecticut for abolishing ft,and the abolition has already taken place inMassachusetts. As to the danger of insurrec-tions from foreign influence, that will become amotive to kind treatment of the slaves.

Mr. Pinckney [S.C.] If slavery be wrong, ft isjustified by the example of all the world. Hecited the case of Greece, Rome, and otherancient States; the sanction given by France,England, Holland, and other modem States. Inall ages one half of mankind have been slaves.If the southern States were let alone they willprobably of themselves stop importations. Hewould himself as a citizen of South Carolinavote for it. An attempt to take away the right asproposed will produce serious objections to theConstitution, which he wished to see adopted.

General Pickney [S.C.] declared it to behis firm opinion that if himself and all his col-leagues were to sign the Constitution anduse their personal influence, it would be of noavail towards obtaining the assent of theirconstituents. South Carolina and Georgiacannot do without slaves. As to Virginia, shewill gain by stopping the importations. Herslaves will rise in value, and she has morethan she wants. It would be unequal torequire South Carolina and Georgia to con-federate on such unequal terms. He said theroyal assent before the Revolution had neverbeen refused to South Carolina as to Virginia.He contended that the importation of slaveswould be for the interest of the whole Union.The more slaves, the more produce toemploy the carrying trade, the more con-sumption also; and the more of this, the moreof revenue for the common treasury....

Source: Richard D. Brown. Major Problems in theEra ol the American Revolution, 1760-1791 (Lexing-ton, Mass.. Heath. 1992). pp. 486-487.

republican principles of the Revolution on the altarof national unity.

Equally important in explaining why theFramers failed to adopt a national emancipationplan is the racism among white Americans. Mostdelegates at the Constitutional Conventionindicted slavery as an evil institution, includingmany representatives from the South, and believedit violated the ideals of the Revolution. Yet, noSouthern politician publicly advocated the end ofslavery, much less advanced a practical proposal forthe elimination of black bondage. Any Southernpublic official who did so would lose his politicaloffice and become a pariah among whites who con-sidered any proposal to free the slaves as a threat tothe social and racial order that they believed wasdetermined by God. Southern leaders were there-fore effectively prevented from dismantling an insti-tution that they privately condemned. As withmodern political leaders, politicians of the Found-ing generation were unwilling to place principalabove their political career and social status. Fewpeople today expect political leaders to commitpolitical suicide by taking a stand on an overwhelm-ingly unpopular issue; therefore, one should notexpect more from the Founding Fathers.

In all fairness, many of the Framers held racistsentiments similar to their constituents. Indeed,few Southerners of any social class could imaginean America in which free whites and free blackswould live together as equals and fellow citizens.Freeing the slaves, they feared, would be a disaster.According to whites, blacks lacked the morality,intelligence, and industry necessary for citizenshipin a white society. To support this assertion, theypointed out that most freed blacks became outcastscut off from the rights of citizens and thereforewere readily exploited by the dominant class anddriven to destitution. Therefore, slavery, theyargued, was a better circumstance for blacks, whowere more docile, happy, and productive underwhite management and control. Additionally, mostwhite Southerners truly feared that universal blackemancipation would lead to racial warfare. Theywere convinced that newly freed angry black menwould seek revenge against whites for their enslave-ment and that of their relatives and ancestors.Although some may argue that whites exaggeratedall the problems in freeing blacks, this fear cannotbe dismissed given that blacks constituted between30 and 60 percent of the population in the South.

Moreover, political leaders throughout thenation were already confronting many public upris-ings by angry whites in both the cities and country-side. The last thing the Founders wanted to do atthis critical time was to unleash even greater socialturmoil by manumitting hundreds of thousands ofslaves. Indeed, whites in both the North and Southwere so fearful over the potential bloody conse-quences associated with manumission that they

supported plans to resettle freedmen outside therepublic. However, colonizing blacks in foreignlands would have added 25 percent to the alreadyhigh cost of a compensated abolition. The Framerswere unable to imagine an America where blacksand whites could live together peacefully, and theirfears paralyzed them from instituting plans for theeventual end of slavery.

Racism was not the only factor hamstringingthe Founders from acting more decisively againstslavery. Economic factors, particularly concernsover private property, also played an influential rolein this issue. After all, slaves were a form of privateproperty, and a slaveholder's claim was founded onproperty rights. Moreover, slavery was the socialand economic foundation of the dominant South-ern planter class; it was also economically impor-tant to the many small slave owners. Moreimportant for Northern delegates such as Gouv-erneur Morris of New York, who wanted slaveryabolished, was the concern that destroying chattelslavery in the South might undermine the sanctityof other forms of property in the North. Accord-ing to the upper class in both the North andSouth, the Confederation Congress had provedtoo weak to protect their economic interests. Dur-ing the mid 1780s democratic movements in thestates threatened property rights and the monetaryand commercial interests of the planter-merchantelite. When Congress proved ineffective in helpingthe states to put down popular uprisings, theycalled for a Constitutional Convention that wouldempower the federal government to protect indi-vidual property rights. Thus, the Framers refusedto consider a national manumission plan becausethey feared the deleterious consequences of givingthe federal government the right to infringe onindividual property rights. Such a radical proposaland dangerous precedent ran counter to the basicobjectives of the Framers to protect propertyrights. This concern among the Founders that allproperty might be undermined if the federal gov-ernment abolished slavery is another reason whythey hesitated to act more strongly against thepeculiar institution.

Also explaining the Founders unwillingnessto take stronger action against slavery was theirbelief that slavery was already on a natural course ofextinction. By 1787 all but two Northern stateshad passed abolition laws that made slavery a sec-tional rather than a national institution. Mean-while, Southern legislatures (save South Carolinaand Georgia) undermined the institution in theirregion by passing laws permitting individual own-ers to free their slaves. Consequently, thousands ofslave owners in the upper South, motivated byboth economic and moral factors, manumittedtheir bondsmen. In Virginia, for example, the freeblack population grew from two thousand in 1782to twenty thousand by 1800. As more planters in

HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 299

Virginia and Maryland switched from the cultiva-tion of tobacco to the less labor-intensive cultiva-tion of wheat, the future of slavery in the upperSouth appeared dubious. Additionally, the Confed-eration Congress passed the Northwest Ordinanceof 1787 barring slavery north of the Ohio River, aprohibition that Southerners supported. With thispowerful precedent giving the federal governmentthe right to prohibit the transportation of slavesinto Western territories, it was not unthinkable thatslavery would be confined to the lower South.

To assert that the Framers created a Constitu-tion that was uniformly proslavery is far too sim-plistic. Most delegates put limits on how far theywould go to protect slavery. Despite making impor-tant concessions to proslavery advocates, the Fram-ers still partially fulfilled the ideals of theRevolution by creating an open-ended documentthat contained, according to historian Donald G.Nieman, a "reservoir of antislavery potential."Indeed, the Constitution did not refrain the federalgovernment from any action hostile to slavery.They also wrote the Constitution in deliberatelygeneral language that allowed for a variety of inter-pretations that would accommodate both pro-slavery and antislavery arguments. Moreover, inwriting the national charter, the Framers weakenedthe institution of slavery in the United States bybarring the African slave trade from Americanports as of 1 January 1808, banning slavery fromMidwestern territories, dissolving the institution inthe Northern states, and diluting slavery in theupper South. These were important steps towardmaking slavery a sectional institution rather than anational one as it had been in 1776.

Under the circumstances, the Framers did allthey could to cripple the expansion of slavery in theUnited States. Many wanted to do more but politi-cal, economic, social, diplomatic, and racial factorshamstrung their efforts. Moreover, the delegatessought to create a national charter that would helpthe federal government resolve the many problemsthat racked the young nation and jeopardized itsfuture. The Convention met to provide political,not social, reform. In any event, few people saw sla-very as a problem for the nation. Indeed, leadersenvisioned more-serious consequences in a nationalemancipation plan than in allowing slavery to con-tinue. To expect the Founding Fathers to intensifythe many problems throughout the nation andthreaten the existence of the Union over an issuethat few white people considered a serious problemis unfair. Instead, the Founders should be praisedfor creating a national charter that weakened theexpansion of slavery and enabled future antislaveryadvocates to wage a constitutional assault againstthe institution that, with the support of the U.S.military, eventually led to its destruction.

-JAMES C. FOLEY, ST. ANDREW EPISCOPALSCHOOL, RIDGELAND, MISSISSIPPI

References

William Cohen, "Thomas Jefferson and the Prob-lem of Slavery," Journal of American History,56 (December 1969): 503-526.

David Brion Davis, The Problem of Slavery in theAge of Revolution, 1770-1823 (Ithaca, N.Y.:Cornell University Press, 1975).

Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Slaveholding Republic:An Account of the United States Government'sRelations to Slavery, edited by Ward M.McAfee (New York: Oxford University Press,2001).

Paul Finkelman, "Slavery and the ConstitutionalConvention: Making a Covenant withDeath," in Beyond Confederation: Origins ofthe Constitution and American National Iden-tity, edited by Richard Beeman, StephenBotein and Edward C. Carter II (ChapelHill: University of North Carolina Press,1987), pp. 188-225.

William W. Freehling, "The Founding Fathersand Slavery," American Historical Review, 77(February 1972): 81-93.

Sylvia R. Frey, Water from the Rock: Black Resis-tance in a Revolutionary Age (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1991).

Staughton Lynd, "Why the United States DidNot Abolish Slavery," in Slave Trade and Sla-very, edited by John Henrik Clarke and Vin-cent Harding (New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston, 1970), pp. 55-64.

Gary B. Nash, Race and Revolution (Madison,Wis.: Madison House, 1990).

Donald G. Nieman, Promises to Keep: African-Americans and the Constitutional Order, 1776to the Present (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1991).

F. Nwabueze Okoye, "Chattel Slavery as theNightmare of the American Revolutionar-ies," William and Mary Quarterly, thirdseries, 37 (January 1980): 3-28.

Donald L. Robinson, Slavery in the Structure ofAmerican Politics, 1765-1820 (New York:Harcourt Brace Javonovich, 1970).

Robert M. Weir, "South Carolina: Slavery and theStructure of the Union," in Ratifying the Con-stitution, edited by Michael Allen Gillespieand Michael Lienesch (Lawrence: UniversityPress of Kansas, 1989), pp. 201-234.

William Wiecek, "The Witch at the Christening:Slavery and the Constitution's Origins," inThe Framing and Ratification of the Constitu-tion, edited by Leonard W. Levy and DennisJ. Mahoney (London: Collier / New York:MacMillan, 1987), pp. 167-184.

300 HISTORY IN DISPUTE, VOLUME 12: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION