All powers not covered in the Constitution, reverts to the states. The constitution is neutral regarding slavery up to the 13th amendment.
The US Constitution was actually ambivalent in regards to the institution of slavery, in that a slave counted for 3/5 of a free citizen in terms of apportioning the votes to be assigned to a state delegation. Third paragraph, Section 2, of Article 1 of the Constitution. The 13th Amendment abolished the institution of slavery, a legal distinction which seems to elude many of those who shout “Racism!” at every opportunity. (Not you, DownInFlames)
However, neither were there any impediments to proscribing slavery hidden in the fine print. As the 13th Amendment proves, the Constitution as ratified in 1788 did contain a mechanism for abolishing slavery once the political capital became available to support the change.
Without the original ambivalence there might never have been a United States, yet in that ambivalence also lay the tools for ending slavery.
Yup. well put.
This is a good answer, but I think "neutral" is a bit of a stretch. The 3/5ths clause, the allowing of Congress to outlaw slave importation in 1808 (Which inherently allows it up till then) and the requirement to return people to whom their labor is due are all examples of the constitution being less than neutral on the issue of slavery.
And of course at the time it was written and adopted, the vast majority of states were slave states.
The constitution appears to be designed to accommodate the wishes of slave states at the time it was ratified.
Not the rights to life, liberty & pursuit of happiness. All wording in the Constitution is for “persons,” not “property.” So states had no authority to deem persons as property.
Great read, “Freedom National,” shows that slavery was virtually ended the moment northern Rs figured this out in the 1830s.