Posted on 11/18/2023 7:59:54 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The Framers structured the Constitution to lead the new Republic to the ultimate end of slavery but were unable to set a time frame for its abolition. The story comes to us from James Madison’s classic Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787.
The discussion on slavery at the Federal Convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 centered on two issues:
1. how to count the slaves in the apportionment of members in the popularly elected House of Representatives and;
2) setting an end date for the slave trade.
Three distinct groups clashed on the assignment of House representation for the slave population. Delegates from the slaveholding South wanted the slaves counted fully toward representation as they represented real wealth. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina defended slavery as being “justified by the example of all the world… In all ages one half of mankind have been slaves.” Many of the Northern delegates, however, objected maintaining that the degraded legal and human status of the slaves should preclude their having any contribution towards representation. Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania led this faction in opposing any representation for “so nefarious a practice.”
Between these two contending sides stood the Virginians. While all of them had been born and raised into a slaveholding society, each had come to recognize that the institution was wrong and ultimately had to go. George Mason of Virginia (ironically the largest slave owner in attendance) gave the Convention’s most impassioned condemnation of the practice: “Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant… By an inevitable chain of cause & effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
In Federalist 54 by James Madison or Alexander Hamilton (or both) explained that the 3/5th provision incentivized the abolition of slavery. The Southern States could have the full representation which they wanted only by ending slavery: “if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants.”
The Convention’s other slavery issue was the slave trade and setting a date for its termination. Again while many delegates were deeply opposed to the trade, those of the slave-states were adamant. Charles Pinckney put it simply, “South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits the slave trade.” There had been a general agreement to set the end date as 1800. Then the Convention accepted a proposal by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina to extend the period until 1808. James Madison was devastated. “Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves.”
Everybody wants to run for the tall grass and hide on this issue. It’s unnecessary, but progressives have used the schools for decades to train us to be deathly afraid of the slavery issue.
This did not just arise in the last 7 years. This is a half-century’s worth of work we are looking at.
One of the best explanations of all this from a Constitutional perspective that you’ll read/hear on this very thing comes from Frederick Douglass.
“The American Constitution and the Slave - Is the Constitution pro-slavery or anti-slavery?”
https://rumble.com/vrtwjm-the-american-constitution-and-the-slave-is-the-constitution-pro-slavery-or-.html
An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic, on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers
Soils in the Chesapeake region were becoming less productive. Wheat was becoming important in Maryland and Virginia, which had previously relied more on tobacco. There was an expectation that slavery would eventually be abolished in those states. With more free states than slave states, it was hoped, the states further South might also rethink slavery and abolition.
The problem was that South Carolina, Georgia and the new states of Alabama and Mississippi had very good soil and climate for growing cotton, and there was great demand internationally for cotton, so slavery didn’t go away. North-South rivalries became stronger as the country moved westward and also played a role. The revolutionary spirit that had inspired the first wave of emancipation didn’t last long either.
This is a very interesting thread and I don’t mean to hijack it, but related to the comment above about cotton, this interesting map shows the change in the world cotton trade: https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3201j.ct002136/?r=-0.036,0.041,0.926,0.577,0
All of that is true moving forward, but the U.S. would’ve been a radically different country from the start had the Empire allowed Americans to abolish slavery when we wanted to abolish it out of our colonial legislatures instead of vetoing our laws.
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.
