The Legend of the Proslavery Constitution

Historians today speak of the “proslavery Constitution” and “antislavery constitutionalism”; they almost never speak of the “antislavery Constitution” or of “proslavery constitutionalism.” This fact is a testament to the profound success of the critique of the Constitution leveled by abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. In his condemnation of the Constitution as proslavery, his resort to Madison’s “Notes from the Constitutional Convention” to demonstrate this case, and his rejection of the Constitution’s authority—all punctuated by his dramatic burning of that document during a Fourth of July address—Garrison has set the terms within which subsequent historical debate on the relationship between the Constitution and slavery has been carried out.

Even historians who disdain Garrison’s caustic critique of the Constitution, who question his partial readings of the Convention’s debates, and who emphasize the development of constitutional arguments that culminated in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments concede at some level Garrison’s premise that the Constitution was intended to be proslavery. Thus, it is sad, but not surprising, to see that the mob rounded up by the New York Times’s “1619 Project” is setting fire to the project of antislavery constitutionalism. Garrison’s belief that the Constitution was intended to be proslavery is an unquenchable fire that will eventually consume all it touches.

The Constitution says nothing about states having the right to secede at will, nor does it say that they cannot.

Some interpret the 10th amendment (i.e. all powers not explicitly delegated to the Federal Government are reserved for the states and the people) to mean that since there is no explicit prohibition against secession, states may do so at will.

Others interpret Section 10 of Article 1 of the Constitution to implicitly at least forbid secession. If states do not have the right to declare war, negotiate treaties, or impose tariffs, then they are not fully sovereign nations and thus cannot assume the powers of a nation at will.

There's a legitimate case to be made for both interpretations, and this legal disagreement is, in a nutshell, what the Civil War was all about.

“Others interpret Section 10 of Article 1 of the Constitution to implicitly at least forbid secession. If states do not have the right to declare war, negotiate treaties, or impose tariffs, then they are not fully sovereign nations and thus cannot assume the powers of a nation at will.”

The founding fathers - and the young nation - had just fought a bloody war to separate the states from England under the theory of “consent of the governed.”

To believe the founders wrote and adopted a constitution forbidding peaceful separation of the states just 11 years after the Declaration of Independence is something I would like explained further.

To believe the founders wrote and adopted a constitution forbidding peaceful separation of the states just 11 years after the Declaration of Independence is something I would like explained further.

There isn't a necessary contradiction - those who saw the United States as a legitimate nation could favor its separation from England while wanting to maintain America's own integrity. This would certainly have been the position of Federalists like Hamilton.

The Anti-Federalist Democratic Republicans (like Jefferson) would have thought otherwise - but Jefferson played no part in writing the Constitution and probably would have preferred something closer to the Articles of Confederation. Madison, a more moderate Democratic-Republican than the Jeffersonians, was largely responsible for drafting a Constitution that would keep the Federalists happy while at the same time decentralizing power enough to prevent a political revolt from members of his own party.

“There isn't a necessary contradiction - those who saw the United States as a legitimate nation could favor its separation from England while wanting to maintain America's own integrity.”

The founders who approved the Declaration of Independence did not see the United States as a legitimate nation and THEN favor its separation from England.

The approvers of the DOI did refer to the “united States of America” but included this language:

“That these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; . . ."

Respectfully, I think you have the timeline backwards. And, all-in-all, I don't think the founders approved a Constitution that repudiated the DOI.

The repudiation of the DOI came later. And continues.

“There isn't a necessary contradiction - those who saw the United States as a legitimate nation could favor its separation from England while wanting to maintain America's own integrity.”

The founders who approved the Declaration of Independence did not see the United States as a legitimate nation and THEN favor its separation from England.

The approvers of the DOI did refer to the “united States of America” but included this language:

“That these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; . . ."

Respectfully, I think you have the timeline backwards. And, all-in-all, I don't think the founders approved a Constitution that repudiated the DOI.

The repudiation of the DOI came later. And continues.

jeffersondem: "George Washington fought for the British.
George Washington fought against the British.
He took these, seemingly conflicting, actions for one reason: he loved his country."

Right, Washington loved his whole country, from Massachusetts to Georgia, and only began to oppose the Brits after they committed a long list of crimes against it (see, for example, the Declaration of Independence).

By stark contrast Jefferson Davis arbitrarily redefined his "country" as just seven states in the Deep South, and accepted presidency of his new "country" without the USA having committed even a single "crime" against those states.

But here's the real difference: Washington was a Federalist, today's Republicans.
Davis was a Democrat, opposed from Day One to the USA as defined by its 1787 Constitution, and was willing to wage war against us, for his own purposes.

jeffersondem: "United States are not a nation?
Even as President Jackson expressed his personal opinion the United States was intended to be a single nation with absolute power, his words give reason to question the thought process of this hot-tempered duelist."

And thus... just for ek_hornbeck's edification, jeffersondem confirms my report that our Lost Causers loathe & despise Andrew Jackson, not because he was a slaveholder or Indian oppressor, but because he was a patriot!

And Jackson had numerous other admirable qualities, including the fact that he was the only US President ever to pay off the national debt -- not just pay-down, he paid it off entirely.
That's why other patriots, like our current President, go out of their way to defend Jackson.

Now, as to jeffersondem's narrow point regarding: is the USA a singular or plural term?
Before roughly 1900 there was no set rule on plural vs. singular and one was used about as often as the other.
Do you remember the 13th Amendment?
It also refers to the United States as plural, so, contrary to Shelby Foote, the Civil War did not suddenly change our terminology.

But... being a typical (an unapologetic) Democrat, jeffersondem just cannot simply admit, "yes, you're right about Jackson", but instead must search for some minor point of grammer to claim victory over.

ek_hornbeck: "The Constitution says nothing about states having the right to secede at will, nor does it say that they cannot...
...There's a legitimate case to be made for both interpretations, and this legal disagreement is, in a nutshell, what the Civil War was all about."

Nonsense, because there was a clear understanding among all Founders, including Jefferson, that disunion or secession was totally acceptable under two, but only two, conditions:

From necessity as in 1776, caused by "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism..."
At pleasure as in 1787, when by mutual consent our Founders abolished the Articles of Confederation government and established their new Constitution.

No Founder, including Jefferson, ever suggested or approved of unilateral declaration of secession at pleasure.
Indeed, most, including Jefferson, clearly expressed opposition to it.

Nevertheless, in 1860 common wisdom (i.e., President Buchanan's) was that the Federal government could do nothing militarily to stop secession itself, or the new Confederacy from forming.
But what even Buchanan did believe was that if Confederates started war against the United States, then the US could & should fight to defeat them.

So Pres. Buchanan warned Jefferson Davis not to start war at Fort Sumter, but Davis ignored him.

jeffersondem: "To believe the founders wrote and adopted a constitution forbidding peaceful separation of the states just 11 years after the Declaration of Independence is something I would like explained further."

Our Founders not only believed in "peaceful separation" they practiced it many times, separating large territories into states and large states into smaller ones.
Further, they also "separated" from their old Articles of Confederation -- at pleasure and by mutual consent.

And that is the key to this whole discussion, mutual consent -- where it exists anything is possible, where it doesn't, nothing can be changed by unilateral actions absent some material breech of compact, such as in 1776.

Of course, no such breech existed in 1860.

ek_hornbeck: "Madison, a more moderate Democratic-Republican than the Jeffersonians, was largely responsible for drafting a Constitution that would keep the Federalists happy while at the same time decentralizing power enough to prevent a political revolt from members of his own party."

You have Madison all wrong.
At the 1787 Constitution Convention, Madison was a firmly committed Federalist supporter of George Washington who favored a strong national government to include such powers as a national bank and Federal infrastructure spending.
But those proposals were defeated at the 1787 Convention and Madison was soon threatened with political extinction (by people like Patrick Henry) if he didn't lead the opposition to them in Congress.
So he did.

But in the end Madison both renewed the national bank and supported Federal infrastructure spending, thus demonstrating that Democrats' "strict construction" is strictly their weapon against Federalists-Republicans, which they ignore whenever they (Democrats) are in power.

Although Madison co-authored The Federalist Papers with Hamilton and Jay, he did not have the same commitment to a strong central government as Hamilton (otherwise he would have been a Federalist, not a Democratic-Republican). And while it’s true that Washington’s political sympathies were Federalist, he refused to join any political party precisely because he didn’t want to fuel a conflict between by openly picking sides. Madison was the right man to author most of the Constitution at the time because his views were a compromise between those of Hamilton and the more extreme members of his own party.

jeffersondem: "Respectfully, I think you have the timeline backwards."

The real timeline is this:

From the late 1760s on, Brits committed many acts against their American colonies which violated colonists' "rights of Englishmen", most notably "taxation without representation".
By 1776 Brits had increasingly responded to colonists objections with force & oppression, most notably an effective declaration of war against Americans.
In July 1776 Congress published a Declaration with a long list of British breaches of American unalienable rights and Congress' declaration that the colonies were 1) united and 2) free and independent States.

The same document which declared us free & independent first announced we are the united States of America.

Congress created the United States of America, period.

jeffersondem: "And, all-in-all, I don't think the founders approved a Constitution that repudiated the DOI.
The repudiation of the DOI came later.
And continues."

Right, it began when slaveholders "forgot" the part about

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

For years Southerners apologized for slavery -- as a "necessary evil" -- hoping to abolish it sometime later.
But after roughly 1835 they stopped apologizing, insisted slavery was a positive moral good and demanded that the subject could no longer be debated.

The Declaration of Independence be d*mned, they implied.

ek_hornbeck: "Although Madison co-authored The Federalist Papers with Hamilton and Jay, he did not have the same commitment to a strong central government as Hamilton (otherwise he would have been a Federalist, not a Democratic-Republican)."

Sorry, but you missed a key point here: Madison was a Federalist, allied with other Federalists like Washington, Adams & Hamilton, believing in a stronger Federal government.
In those days "stronger" meant two things: a national bank and what we today call "infrastructure" spending -- at the 1787 Constitution Convention Madison favored them both!

But both were defeated in the Convention and Madison was later threatened with political extinction (by the likes of Patrick Henry) if he didn't lead the opposition to them during President Washington's administration.
So he did and thus was born what's called the Jeffersonian Democrat party.

So it was Madison (not Jefferson) who founded the Democrats' party and invited Jefferson to lead it, which he did.
But both Madison and Jefferson practiced what has been the Democrats' modus operandi ever since: in their views "strict construction" applies only to their political opponents, not to themselves.
Once in political power, after the 1800 election, Democrats soon did every "unconstitutional" thing they had accused Federalists of wanting to do, and more things besides!

ek_hornbeck: "And while it’s true that Washington’s political sympathies were Federalist, he refused to join any political party precisely because he didn’t want to fuel a conflict between by openly picking sides. "

No, Washington lead what was called the Federalists, period.
They were the people who wrote the Constitution and ratified it against opposition from anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry and, to some degree, Thomas Jefferson.
But Washington then invited both Henry and Jefferson to join his administration -- a unity government, you might say.
Henry refused, Jefferson accepted but soon became leader of the anti-Administration faction which later became the Jeffersonian Democrats.

So by the end of his life Washington came to loathe Jefferson with a passion so strong that Martha Washington called Jefferson's courtesy visit to Mount Vernon the second worst day of her life -- second only to the day George Washington died!

Washington was a strong constitution-ratifying Federalist allied politically with others like Adams, Hamilton, John Jay, John Marshall, Charles Pinckney, Dewitt Clinton & Rufus King.
He opposed those who opposed his Constitution and eventually came to loathe the leaders of Jefferson's Democrat party.

George Washington was a Federalist.

“And thus... just for ek_hornbeck’s edification, jeffersondem confirms my report that our Lost Causers loathe & despise Andrew Jackson, not because he was a slaveholder or Indian oppressor, but because he was a patriot!”

Brother Joe’s angry musings bring to mind the line from “Ball of Fire”: “Red as the ‘Dailey Worker’ and just as sore.”

The vignette starts at the two minute mark. It is something Brother Joe is not: warm, amusing, and fun-loving.

https://youtu.be/x5p5LBMdCko

Brother Joe’s angry musings bring to mind the line from “Ball of Fire”: “Red as the ‘Dailey Worker’ and just as sore.”

The vignette starts at the two minute mark. It is something Brother Joe is not: warm, amusing, and fun-loving.

https://youtu.be/x5p5LBMdCko

ek_hornbeck’s edification, jeffersondem confirms my report that our Lost Causers loathe & despise Andrew Jackson, not because he was a slaveholder or Indian oppressor, but because he was a patriot

A few years ago, when Obama's people were pushing replacing Jackson on the $20 with Harriet Tubman, the people on this forum applauding the move weren't Pro-Confederate "Lost Causers", but rather politically correct Republicans who hated Jackson for the same reasons the Cancel Culture does (i.e. slavery and Indians), or else brainwashed Dinesh D'Souza types who can't think past "Jackson is DEMOCRAT. BAD... Harriet Tubman REPUBLICAN...GOOD!"

I'm not sure why BroJoeK tries to minimize the very real ideological divide between Madison and actual Federalists (i.e. Federalist Party members) like Hamilton. For instance, Madison, like most of his fellow Democratic-Republicans, opposed chartering the First Bank of the United States (and Central Banks generally) while Hamilton was pro-Central Bank.

Again, it's true that Madison wasn't a staunch anti-Federalist (otherwise he wouldn't have authored the Constitution), but the claim that Madison and Hamilton were on the same page when it came to centralism is completely false.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.