If the American Revolution had failed, slavery may have endured in the 13 British colonies of North America into the 1830s, which is the decade that Great Britain began abolishing slavery in its colonies. So, the Slavery in West Florida (Florida, coastal Alabama, and coastal Mississippi) may have lasted until 1886, which is the year Spain abolish slavery in Cuba. Slavery in the vast Louisiana Territory, which included all or part of 14 states, might have endured until 1899, when France abolished slavery in the last of its colonies. Although Mexico abolished in 1820, but the prohibition against slavery was widely ignored, and slave owners were permitted to convert their slaves to indentured servants for life. Slaves were still being sold at auction in Chihuahua City during the American Civil War.
4
"After Lincoln’s election to the presidency, 11 Southern states seceded to protect what the South Carolina secessionists called their constitutional “right of property in slaves.”
This is demonstrably false. While 7 states of the deep south seceded shortly after Lincoln's election, four, including the Upper South states of Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee seceded only after Lincoln's call to raise 75,000 to put down the rebellion following Ft. Sumter. Maryland did not secede but passed a resolution condemning Lincoln's actions and acted to prevent the movement of troops through the state to the Capital. In other words, those states acted only after Lincoln proposed to invade the South.
To claim that 11 states seceded strictly to "protect slavery" therefore is not only historically inaccurate but acts to absolve Lincoln for his role in the crisis.
This is demonstrably false. While 7 states of the deep south seceded shortly after Lincoln's election, four, including the Upper South states of Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee seceded only after Lincoln's call to raise 75,000 to put down the rebellion following Ft. Sumter. Maryland did not secede but passed a resolution condemning Lincoln's actions and acted to prevent the movement of troops through the state to the Capital. In other words, those states acted only after Lincoln proposed to invade the South.
To claim that 11 states seceded strictly to "protect slavery" therefore is not only historically inaccurate but acts to absolve Lincoln for his role in the crisis.
2
Would you have counseled Lincoln to not put down the rebellion?
22
So, the Constitution was not a "proslavery compact of 'racist principles,'" but rather a far-reaching compromise *with* racist principles. Two cheers for moral ascendancy! "Founded on racism," seems pretty accurate to me.
31
It seems bizarre to read these comments. Some agree with the author (and Lincoln/Douglas) and most just believe that the US is racist from the get go.
Not sure if everyone is educated here, but history is complex and to state, as Sanders did, that the US was founded on racist principles is nonsense. Definitely very far leaning leftist rhetoric. And while women, white men that did not own property, and blacks were not allowed to vote or own land 250+ hundred years ago, that was true around the world. At least in countries that actually had a vote or could own land. Very few, any?
And the Civil War began over more that slavery, but again, most on the far left as well as the far right, like to pick and choose the things they talk about and the evidence (?) they promote to prove a point.
Sanders proves himself to be closer to communism than capitalism. As do some commenters. But, I ask you, show me a communist country where the people are happy or free to think and even print the comments we are all free to make here. You cannot. While not perfect, the US is far more generous, optimistic, and free (regardless of your skin color) than most countries on the planet. That is true today and it was true 200+ years ago.
Not sure if everyone is educated here, but history is complex and to state, as Sanders did, that the US was founded on racist principles is nonsense. Definitely very far leaning leftist rhetoric. And while women, white men that did not own property, and blacks were not allowed to vote or own land 250+ hundred years ago, that was true around the world. At least in countries that actually had a vote or could own land. Very few, any?
And the Civil War began over more that slavery, but again, most on the far left as well as the far right, like to pick and choose the things they talk about and the evidence (?) they promote to prove a point.
Sanders proves himself to be closer to communism than capitalism. As do some commenters. But, I ask you, show me a communist country where the people are happy or free to think and even print the comments we are all free to make here. You cannot. While not perfect, the US is far more generous, optimistic, and free (regardless of your skin color) than most countries on the planet. That is true today and it was true 200+ years ago.
14
The President just addressed the right about the tone coming from so many in this comment section -- about all the "perennial doom and gloom." There's "nothing particularly patriotic" he said. It's as bad when it comes from the left as from the right. This nation needs loving critics not uncritical lovers or unloving critics.
6
3/5s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How is counting someone as 3/5s of a person not racist per the Constitution? This article should not have been published. Wow, the NYT really has it out for Bernie. What a shame in so many ways.
ps- dont forget about the fugitive slave clause as well! Has this guy even read the original document?
How is counting someone as 3/5s of a person not racist per the Constitution? This article should not have been published. Wow, the NYT really has it out for Bernie. What a shame in so many ways.
ps- dont forget about the fugitive slave clause as well! Has this guy even read the original document?
12
The economics of slavery were revolutionized by the invention of the cotton gin, which took place in 1793, just AFTER the Constitution. The boom in cotton production ended any hope that slavery would wither away as unprofitable.
No one is arguing against the straw man that the Constitution reflected exactly the wishes of the pro-slavery forces. That hardly changes the significance of the three-fifths clause--Wilentz doesn't even discuss the resulting distortion of the Electoral College, contenting himself with the claim that slavery forces were more powerful in the Senate than in the House. Even this claim of his is dubious; the House's "gag rule" on slavery was rescinded only in 1844.
No one is arguing against the straw man that the Constitution reflected exactly the wishes of the pro-slavery forces. That hardly changes the significance of the three-fifths clause--Wilentz doesn't even discuss the resulting distortion of the Electoral College, contenting himself with the claim that slavery forces were more powerful in the Senate than in the House. Even this claim of his is dubious; the House's "gag rule" on slavery was rescinded only in 1844.
9
Don't know much about history..."
Wow, this is amazing. Really, Will, it doesn't take 2,000 words to convince me you really got to get back to reading books instead of writing them. The US was hugely dependent on slave labor, even after the term "slavery" (although not the practice) was eliminated. De facto slavery continued in full force and does so today. The myriad laws passed to keep slavery and, more important, white supremacy intact are not all that difficult to find. It's all pretty well documented, if you look.
Wow, this is amazing. Really, Will, it doesn't take 2,000 words to convince me you really got to get back to reading books instead of writing them. The US was hugely dependent on slave labor, even after the term "slavery" (although not the practice) was eliminated. De facto slavery continued in full force and does so today. The myriad laws passed to keep slavery and, more important, white supremacy intact are not all that difficult to find. It's all pretty well documented, if you look.
15
This is a welcome and fascinating analysis by Professor Wilentz, but I don't see how it contradicts Sanders' observation that the country, in many ways, was founded on racist principles. The extent to which the constitution sanctioned the institution of slavery is not an absolute measure of the degree of racism involved. The words of the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal," excluded people of color, slave or free, just as the words excluded women. There are no explicit clauses in the articles denying women the rights of citizenship, yet clearly women's rights were suppressed. While the 3/5ths compromise may be framed as an anti-slavery talking point, it nevertheless -- very plainly -- valued the lives of African Americans as less than fully human. That is racist. Attempting to eradicate the institution of slavery is an obvious start, but is not tantamount to acting without racial bias.
51
History and human behavior are never as simple as we like to think. The world isn’t divided starkly between good people and bad people today, and it wasn’t at our nation’s founding either. How is it possible that good men like Washington, Jefferson and Madison, who were some of the most advanced political thinkers of this or any time, were also slave holders?
We have to understand they were men who were strongly influenced by their times and the culture they were born into, as are we. About some things, they were right, some things wrong. I’m sure our descendants will make the same judgments about us.
Sanders’ blanket condemnation of the early Americans betrays a negative mindset about the goodness of human beings, which I find most unattractive.
We have to understand they were men who were strongly influenced by their times and the culture they were born into, as are we. About some things, they were right, some things wrong. I’m sure our descendants will make the same judgments about us.
Sanders’ blanket condemnation of the early Americans betrays a negative mindset about the goodness of human beings, which I find most unattractive.
5
Slavery was something that the Southern states sought in many of the clauses of the Constitution though not directly mentioned. Because England's population and courts were showing significant antipathy towards slavery, southern states (that relied on slave labor and were highly leveraged financially because of such) were compelled to fight in the Revolutionary War to keep their wealth. Northerners also saw that their financial interests required slaves. Slavery and agriculture were the engines of early America.
Only by narrowly limiting the phrase "National Institution" to require specific language in the Constitution can the author's argument seem narrowly plausible as it was more a southern rather than "national" institution. As for comments by southerners that "someday slavery might end" or that it posed "burdens" on plantation owners, let's keep in mind that many people at that time were capable and willing to put some "spin" on their arguments so that the institution would be preserved in the long run; particularly, because they wanted the British public to not find a moral reason for opposing the American Revolution.
Only by narrowly limiting the phrase "National Institution" to require specific language in the Constitution can the author's argument seem narrowly plausible as it was more a southern rather than "national" institution. As for comments by southerners that "someday slavery might end" or that it posed "burdens" on plantation owners, let's keep in mind that many people at that time were capable and willing to put some "spin" on their arguments so that the institution would be preserved in the long run; particularly, because they wanted the British public to not find a moral reason for opposing the American Revolution.
5
Tortured and hair splitting. What has the author proved? That there were opponents of slavery in the 1700s who managed to tone down its mention in the Constitution? An embarrassing fig leaf with no practical significance.
The fact is that for a century after the Constitution, the accommodations made for the 'slave power' were numerous and continuous. There was a slave market in the heart of Washington, DC for crying out loud til the Compromise of 1850. And come to mention it, the Capitol and the White House were built with slave labor. For decades there was an infamous 'gag order' in Congress that prohibited even the MENTION of slavery on the floor of either house.
The entire economy, North and South, was based on slave labor for several centuries. The cotton and tobacco industries, rice in South Carolina, Sugar in Louisiana, and the products manufactured in the northeast and then used in the triangle trade by New England Yankees who captained the slave ships, all relied on these slave produced commodities that built this country.
The south takes too hard a hit in this question, as the north was equally complicit in this vicious and blood soaked story.
New York had the highest number of slaves for a long time in the 1700s. In the 1990s the old negro cemetery was uncovered in NYC. The shocking discovery when the skeletons were unearthed was that many had broken necks-- they were used like pack animals to unload cargo for the nations largest port.
Face it.
The fact is that for a century after the Constitution, the accommodations made for the 'slave power' were numerous and continuous. There was a slave market in the heart of Washington, DC for crying out loud til the Compromise of 1850. And come to mention it, the Capitol and the White House were built with slave labor. For decades there was an infamous 'gag order' in Congress that prohibited even the MENTION of slavery on the floor of either house.
The entire economy, North and South, was based on slave labor for several centuries. The cotton and tobacco industries, rice in South Carolina, Sugar in Louisiana, and the products manufactured in the northeast and then used in the triangle trade by New England Yankees who captained the slave ships, all relied on these slave produced commodities that built this country.
The south takes too hard a hit in this question, as the north was equally complicit in this vicious and blood soaked story.
New York had the highest number of slaves for a long time in the 1700s. In the 1990s the old negro cemetery was uncovered in NYC. The shocking discovery when the skeletons were unearthed was that many had broken necks-- they were used like pack animals to unload cargo for the nations largest port.
Face it.
24
I am not sure what argument the writer is really going for with his hair splitting!
While the nation was not founded as a racist slavery nation, our founding document The Constitution - recognized the institution of slavery as a feature in our national make-up.. i.e. the 3/5 clause. Further, the amendments added after the civil war were deliberately attempting to ensure former slaves were supposed to be treated as equal citizens rather than as property.
Lincoln's statement was, IMO, a rhetorical means to advance
The writer also makes a FALSE statement when he says QUOTE: James Madison (himself a slaveholder) opposed the ardent proslavery delegates and stated that it would be “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”
Madison in fact did NOT say that as is stated- he said QUOTE "[The Convention] thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men."
-- James Madison, Records of the Convention, August 25, 1787
The CONVENTION thought it wrong... to ADMIT.. in a public document?
While the nation was not founded as a racist slavery nation, our founding document The Constitution - recognized the institution of slavery as a feature in our national make-up.. i.e. the 3/5 clause. Further, the amendments added after the civil war were deliberately attempting to ensure former slaves were supposed to be treated as equal citizens rather than as property.
Lincoln's statement was, IMO, a rhetorical means to advance
The writer also makes a FALSE statement when he says QUOTE: James Madison (himself a slaveholder) opposed the ardent proslavery delegates and stated that it would be “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”
Madison in fact did NOT say that as is stated- he said QUOTE "[The Convention] thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men."
-- James Madison, Records of the Convention, August 25, 1787
The CONVENTION thought it wrong... to ADMIT.. in a public document?
9
How can you possibly suggest that slavery was not a national institution? You are splitting hairs over language to deny...what? That this country was not built on the backs of captive humans? That because slavery as an institution was not codified it was not a fundamental part of our history?
In the opinion of one of our country's most influential racists, the institution of slavery was a founding assumption. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, writing for the majority in the 1857 Dred Scott decision, acknowledged that at the time of the writing of the Constitution, "[Negroes of African Descent] were...considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race." He further noted that "the Constitution recognises [sic] the right of property of the master in a slave..." and the Government has no right to encroach upon it.
Perhaps the true intent of the second amendment was to guarantee slave owners--or their well-regulated militias--the right to bear arms to prevent uprisings. How else could you keep so many slaves in their place?
Mr. Sanders' comments about the racist principles upon which our country was founded is an honest and important admission. When we deny that our nation was built brutally, using the forced labor of human captives, we block the path forward for resolving the inequality and bitterness that still exists because of it.
In the opinion of one of our country's most influential racists, the institution of slavery was a founding assumption. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, writing for the majority in the 1857 Dred Scott decision, acknowledged that at the time of the writing of the Constitution, "[Negroes of African Descent] were...considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race." He further noted that "the Constitution recognises [sic] the right of property of the master in a slave..." and the Government has no right to encroach upon it.
Perhaps the true intent of the second amendment was to guarantee slave owners--or their well-regulated militias--the right to bear arms to prevent uprisings. How else could you keep so many slaves in their place?
Mr. Sanders' comments about the racist principles upon which our country was founded is an honest and important admission. When we deny that our nation was built brutally, using the forced labor of human captives, we block the path forward for resolving the inequality and bitterness that still exists because of it.
12
On one level this is just quibbling. Yes, he argues, the Constitution did not establish slavery or the right to own human beings. But, Sanders' comment, and the scholarship from the left, is that America was founded on racist principles. Even his own article states those principles. The idea that any one race is superior to another, is racist. Even the idea that their are in a biological sense "races" is racist. But, the Constitution also allowed the re-establishment of neo-slavery with the Thirteenth Amendment's clause about involuntary servitude in prison. Southern states and northern corporations quickly took advantage of that clause to throw thousands of Black men into jail where they could work for nothing for corporations, while the corporations paid sheriffs for their new human property. We could also add that America was established on the other principle that we could drive the Natives off their land and exterminate. That is no where in the Constitution, but that was certainly federal policy.
12
Maybe what Mr. Wilentz is trying to do here is to keep today's inflamed conservatives from over-nationalizing the institution of slavery in the years leading up to the Civil War, in their ongoing attempts to deny the essential truth that the South's secession was an act of anti-American rebellion.
4
Really? "Slavery is no national institution"? Strange because the NY Times editorial position, incessant "immigration nation" mass immigration media propaganda supported by most economists comes within a nanometer of declaring that our "few percent" business owner nobility have a Constitutional right to some functional equivalent underclass of millions of immigrant, fraction of a living wage-slaves - that this can not be an advanced civilization and "prosperous" nation without a continually renewed slave class. Precisely the same "its economically necessary" justification that Jefferson and the ancient Greeks and Romans gave.
2
Boy this is a stretch. As the author himself points out, the Constitution recognized the institution of slavery implicitly in the three-fifths clause and the fugitive slave provision.
For Professor Wilenz to deny the veracity Senator Sanders' statement that this country’s founding and its economic development was in many respects connected to racist principles and practices is simply bizarre. More than a few of the Founders were slaveholders, and the rest acquiesced to the legal institution of slavery practice in much of the nation.
For Professor Wilenz to deny the veracity Senator Sanders' statement that this country’s founding and its economic development was in many respects connected to racist principles and practices is simply bizarre. More than a few of the Founders were slaveholders, and the rest acquiesced to the legal institution of slavery practice in much of the nation.
25
This isn't wrong, but it is hair splitting. The Constitution was written so that it left the status of slaves to Congress and Congress immediately wrote up citizenship laws that precluded blacks from being citizens. The often maligned Chief Justice Taney, who was in fact very good at jurisprudence, wrote a very carefully reasoned opinion in the case of Dred Scott concluding that blacks were never intended to be citizens protected by the Constitution. The consequence of that Dred Scott analysis was that a Constitutional Amendment (and war) was needed to change the status of African Americans.
13
Economically.which is what matters, as exemplified in the priority of property ovrr human rights in the laws the u.s. was founded on slavery, actual and indentured, since the conquered indians could not be gooten to work like that.
2
History of the Corwin Amendment provides further evidence that the Framers of the Constitution and Lincoln did not believe that slaves were property under federal law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
In early 1861, Sen. Jefferson Davis proposed a constitutional amendment to recognize property rights in slaves. Sen. Corwin countered with an amendment that would prohibit the federal government from interfering with states rights in property--an attempt to woo seceding states. In his first inaugural address, President Lincoln said: "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution... to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." It passed March 2, 1861 but never has been ratified. During the subsequent war, some Union forces returned fugitive slaves to their owners, until Congress passed an act March 13, 1862. As a military necessity, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation to free slaves, but it did not abolish slavery, and Lincoln doubted it was constitutional. Ending slavery and forced labor required ratification of a different 13th Amendment and passage of state laws in the slave border states that did not secede.
In early 1861, Sen. Jefferson Davis proposed a constitutional amendment to recognize property rights in slaves. Sen. Corwin countered with an amendment that would prohibit the federal government from interfering with states rights in property--an attempt to woo seceding states. In his first inaugural address, President Lincoln said: "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution... to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." It passed March 2, 1861 but never has been ratified. During the subsequent war, some Union forces returned fugitive slaves to their owners, until Congress passed an act March 13, 1862. As a military necessity, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation to free slaves, but it did not abolish slavery, and Lincoln doubted it was constitutional. Ending slavery and forced labor required ratification of a different 13th Amendment and passage of state laws in the slave border states that did not secede.
1
Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln sent a letter to the governor of each state transmitting the proposed amendment, noting that Buchanan had approved it. It would then be sent to the states for ratification. However, by the time ratification commenced, the Civil War had already begun. It is interesting to note that, regardless of the war, three states—Ohio on May 13, 1861, Maryland on January 10, 1862, and Illinois on February 14, 1862—ratified the amendment. If the Corwin Amendment had been ratified by the required number of states prior to 1865, the “Reconstruction Amendments” (13th, 14th and 15th) would not have been permissible because they explicitly abolished or interfered with the domestic institution of the states.
2
Thoughts:
"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." Confederate VP Alexander Stephens, “Cornerstone Speech”, March 21, 1861
“Traditions — especially traditions in the law — are as likely to codify the preferences of those in power as they are to reflect necessity or proven wisdom.” Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens 1992
"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." Confederate VP Alexander Stephens, “Cornerstone Speech”, March 21, 1861
“Traditions — especially traditions in the law — are as likely to codify the preferences of those in power as they are to reflect necessity or proven wisdom.” Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens 1992
4
I'm still not sure why people are not understanding the significance of the three-fifths rule. The slave holders, usually 5-10 percent of the free population of slave states, wanted slaves counted completely. This would mean that slave states would get more seats in the House of Representatives. Since slaves could not vote, that would disproportionality increase the influence of slave states and slave holders in Congress. The free states did not want people who were prevented from voting to be counted in determining representation. The evil of the three-fifths compromise was not that slaves were "only" counted as three-fifths, it was that slaves were counted at all.
17
A lot of people here in South Carolina still do not refer to it as the Civil War or the War Between the States. They prefer to call it the War of Northern Aggression.
1
It was my understanding that slavery continued after 1865. In other words, it was not extinct by then. Or, am I missing something?
The Liberals are discriminating and racist. Asserting that the USA was founded on racist principles is a from of racial profiling. Since, a large percentage of white americans opposed slavery from the beginning of the USA. And, not only is that assertion a form of racial profiling of white americans, but its a double standard, because slavery and the exploitation of others people labor was virtually a world wide institution in the 18th century. In many cases, Virginia slaves were better treated than New York immigrants
3
Many commenters appear to think the Constitutional Convention debate over slavery pitted delegates from Northern states against delegates from Southern states, but it actually pitted delegates of four states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania) that had abolished slavery against eight states (New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia) that had not abolished slavery. (Rhode Island had abolished slavery, but did not send delegates to the convention.) Delegates from Northern slave states outnumbered delegates form Northern states that had abolished slavery by 20 to 14.
1
Frederick Douglass, in his famous Fourth of July oration, told his audience to hold fast to the principles in the founding document.
"I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost."
Confederate vice-president Alexander Stephens did not believe it a self evident truth that blacks were equal which he called the "fundamental mistake" that the Confederacy was fixing to correct.
Abolitionist William Llyoyd Garrison wanted to scrap the Constitution which he believed was a compromise with the evil institution of slavery and for the same reason he disdained the political process.
Frederick Douglass and other Abolitionists disagreed, believing that politics was the arena where slavery should be fought and that the Constitution allowed for it.
He also refuted many of the points mentioned here, like the three-fifths clause and the twenty year delay before the abolition of the slave trade.
"I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost."
Confederate vice-president Alexander Stephens did not believe it a self evident truth that blacks were equal which he called the "fundamental mistake" that the Confederacy was fixing to correct.
Abolitionist William Llyoyd Garrison wanted to scrap the Constitution which he believed was a compromise with the evil institution of slavery and for the same reason he disdained the political process.
Frederick Douglass and other Abolitionists disagreed, believing that politics was the arena where slavery should be fought and that the Constitution allowed for it.
He also refuted many of the points mentioned here, like the three-fifths clause and the twenty year delay before the abolition of the slave trade.
4
Slavery may have been situated in the southern slave states, but it was most definitely a "national institution," not only in practice, but in law: The Northwest Ordinance was also a "founding document." It was enacted by the Confederation Congress of 1787 and reaffirmed by Congress in 1789 under the new Constitution. It created the Northwest Territory, which became the states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota. The Ordinance provides that "the following articles shall be considered as Articles of compact between the original States and the people and states in the said territory, and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent."
The Northwest Ordinance contains the following language about slavery:
Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.
So, even though slavery was prohibited in the Northwest Territory, the law effectively recognized slavery in the "original" slave states and required that fugitive slaves be returned to their owners. Thus it arguably "nationalized" the institution of slavery.
The Northwest Ordinance contains the following language about slavery:
Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.
So, even though slavery was prohibited in the Northwest Territory, the law effectively recognized slavery in the "original" slave states and required that fugitive slaves be returned to their owners. Thus it arguably "nationalized" the institution of slavery.
7
Sorry, Sean, but you are off the rails on this one. Nonwhites and females were considered nonentities when US Constitution created by white guys.
Nonwhites and females had no right to vote nor to own property and were "branded" by the last name of their "owners," namely slaveholders and husbands. End of story. Stop grasping at straws.
Nonwhites and females had no right to vote nor to own property and were "branded" by the last name of their "owners," namely slaveholders and husbands. End of story. Stop grasping at straws.
18
What you say was not true everywhere. The legal systems varied by colony, state, municipality.
Single women had the right to own property. North of Mason-Dixon women could vote if they could meet the property requirement - about $1000 in today's money) and businesswomen did just that in Philadelphia and New Jersey. Some married women were doing civil disobedience of the laws of coverture with their husbands to allow them to have a say in things.
The US Constitution is based in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which was taken very seriously north of Mason-Dixon, particularly in the non-Puritan areas. Both the 1689 Bill of Rights, the US Bill of Rights are based in rights of "person". The words "man" or "woman, nor "white" or 'black" or other racial terms are not used in the document in the operative language.
Single women had the right to own property. North of Mason-Dixon women could vote if they could meet the property requirement - about $1000 in today's money) and businesswomen did just that in Philadelphia and New Jersey. Some married women were doing civil disobedience of the laws of coverture with their husbands to allow them to have a say in things.
The US Constitution is based in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which was taken very seriously north of Mason-Dixon, particularly in the non-Puritan areas. Both the 1689 Bill of Rights, the US Bill of Rights are based in rights of "person". The words "man" or "woman, nor "white" or 'black" or other racial terms are not used in the document in the operative language.
4
Sorry, but I would disagree. In the 1700s, most of the globe did not allow women to own property, regardless of color. Also, most of the globe, were voting was allowed at all, mandated that no one, including white guys, could vote if they did not own property. It had nothing to do with slavery or race. It was the times, get over it.
The constitution does NOT institutionalize slavery and it never did.
The constitution does NOT institutionalize slavery and it never did.
4
"Sorry," Mary, as you say, to disagree, but the Constitution IMPLICITLY recognized the institution of -- i.e., "institutionalized" -- this shameful subjugation of other people. All the 3/5 persons business and other allusions to "property rights" clearly were all about the white property owner's (read: slave owner's) political supremacy. (Let's don't even get INTO the absence of women and women's rights from this document.) It took a formal amendment to explicily recognize this wrong and put it right. (Otherwise, why would we have needed the 14th amendment, in the first place? It took the 19th amendment to eliminate male enfranchisement, only.)
M.C's young in Brooklyn, NY.
Who put you up this, Mr. Wilentz? To call this sophistry would be far too kind. 3/5 a person? What about Thomas Jefferson, slave holder-hypocrite's (self) criticism of slavery--which was removed from the Declaration of Independence?
You attempt to misread or distort Mr. Sanders' statement of fact-- absolute fact-- to what purpose? You're an Ivy League, University of Oxford educated professor of history at Princeton University, and this is what you write? Well, I found this interview at newyorker.com, dated 10-8-10. "... being well-educated, these days, does not necessarily mean being historically aware ..."
Mr. Wilentz, you're living proof of your own words.
Who put you up this, Mr. Wilentz? To call this sophistry would be far too kind. 3/5 a person? What about Thomas Jefferson, slave holder-hypocrite's (self) criticism of slavery--which was removed from the Declaration of Independence?
You attempt to misread or distort Mr. Sanders' statement of fact-- absolute fact-- to what purpose? You're an Ivy League, University of Oxford educated professor of history at Princeton University, and this is what you write? Well, I found this interview at newyorker.com, dated 10-8-10. "... being well-educated, these days, does not necessarily mean being historically aware ..."
Mr. Wilentz, you're living proof of your own words.
12
The roots of the civil war predate the creation of the US and certainly the constitution. The rifts between the north and south were many, deepened after the revolutionary war and were by no means limited to slavery.
States' rights, including slavery, culminated in the civil war. The issue of states' right is still being fought today over abortion, voting rights, gay marriage... The list is long but the civil war is still being fought today.
The south seceding looks even more appealing as time goes by.
States' rights, including slavery, culminated in the civil war. The issue of states' right is still being fought today over abortion, voting rights, gay marriage... The list is long but the civil war is still being fought today.
The south seceding looks even more appealing as time goes by.
6
Sean Wilentz is a long-time advocate of Hillary Clinton. The second paragraph of this opinion piece reveals that it is a campaign document disparaging Bernie Sanders rather an attempt at historical scholarship.
Constitutionally, slavery was a national institution. Ratification of the Constitution by all 17 states admitted before 1808 embodied their acceptance of the continued nationwide importation of slaves through 1807. Another 17 states as part of their admission ratified the Constitution while the provision for return of fugitive slaves was still operative.
Constitutionally, slavery was a national institution. Ratification of the Constitution by all 17 states admitted before 1808 embodied their acceptance of the continued nationwide importation of slaves through 1807. Another 17 states as part of their admission ratified the Constitution while the provision for return of fugitive slaves was still operative.
13
even if the constitution did not authorize slavery, your white supremacy courts, city governments, governors, mayors, justice (really injustice) systems did, plus white people believed in slavery and promoted, sponsored and enforced any and all rules that subjugated Black people to the inhumane horrors and torchers of slavery.
2
Curious this piece. I would like to know if Mr. Wilentz is a supporter of Ms. Clinton. Full disclosure please.
7
I am surprised that the headline for this essay made it through the sieve of the Op-ed editors. I read your piece very carefully and believe that you have engaged in deceptive sophistry. There are no witnesses to all of the discussions that led to the final draft of the Constitution but many scholars have pored over the letters between the participants and letters on the question of slavery following the adoption of the constitution and most scholars believe the evidence is in the decisions of the government to remain silent on the matter of slavery or to go along with this terrible institution which many of our elites, at the time, particularly leaders of the formative years of the Republic, such as Jefferson and Madison developed a rationalization that slaves were an inferior derivative of the human species. The shadow of these early decades of hypocrisy still falls on the United States and is a tribal curse of humankind that led to the Civil War, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights struggle which still persists.
Let me praise Senator Sanders and his courage in reminding people that we have a long way to go to achieve a more perfect union.
Let me praise Senator Sanders and his courage in reminding people that we have a long way to go to achieve a more perfect union.
20
You didn't pour over this article very well. The point made is that slavery was not enshrined as a national policy. It is clear that the founders hoped that slavery would come naturally to an end -- given the way that the value of slaves had dropped in Virginia, it is understandable that they missed the way that tobacco and especially ginned cotton would create an economic disincentive to end the institution. The fact that most Americans up until the Dred Scott decision believed that states had the right to outlaw slavery also says that they didn't think it was a national institution.
7
I agree with you, emphatically so.
Some delegates to Constitutional Convention wholeheartedly endorsed slavery, some thought it a necessary evil, and other deplored slavery. But what they thought or felt as individuals doesn't matter. Collectively, the delegates opted not to address slavery in the Constitution. They neither protect nor prohibited The slavery issue was left up to the individual states, which were fee to abolish or sanction slavery as they saw fit. There was never a constitutional right to owned slaves. If slavery had been constitutionally protected, states would not have been free to abolish slaver, as most did prior to the Civil War.
In Federalist 54, Madison [some think possibly Hamilton] said the following when discussing the question of numbers in determining representation in the new government (I’ve highlighted certain words):
“….it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that 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.”
Rights, in the Lockean sense—as Madison and Hamilton likely agreed—came from nature; governments and laws did not give rights to persons, since governments might also take them away. Rights, including the rights of those enslaved by “pretext,” belonged to African-Americans like any other person.; because they preceded the establishment of government.
Federalist 54 underlines Madison’s and Hamilton’s views and reinforces the theme of this fine and useful essay.
“….it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that 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.”
Rights, in the Lockean sense—as Madison and Hamilton likely agreed—came from nature; governments and laws did not give rights to persons, since governments might also take them away. Rights, including the rights of those enslaved by “pretext,” belonged to African-Americans like any other person.; because they preceded the establishment of government.
Federalist 54 underlines Madison’s and Hamilton’s views and reinforces the theme of this fine and useful essay.
9
The distinction between our nation's founding document 'tolerating slavery as a local institution' and 'enshrining it as a national law' seems mainly semantic. Overall, the question of whether the constitution formally and explicitly protects a right to own slaves is a completely reductive approach to evaluating whether our nation was founded on racist principles.
I can't believe it would've mattered to enslaved people that their status was 'tolerated' rather than enshrined, nor should that distinction be meaningful to people affected by the legacy of the institution. The tone deaf insensitivity of this piece is alarming.
I can't believe it would've mattered to enslaved people that their status was 'tolerated' rather than enshrined, nor should that distinction be meaningful to people affected by the legacy of the institution. The tone deaf insensitivity of this piece is alarming.
19
Great. Since the distinction is only semantic, because slaves remained slaves even after the 13 colonies united with no unity on the slave issue, you do not dispute the claim, but deny it is relevant to you, in 2015.
Yeah yeah, sure.
There are a lot of people in Syria right now who need such effective moral advocates to fix that problem pronto. What is holding you up? Must be easy.
Yeah yeah, sure.
There are a lot of people in Syria right now who need such effective moral advocates to fix that problem pronto. What is holding you up? Must be easy.
It mattered hugely. A black man born in a free state was free. An enshrined right to slavery would have made those laws illegal. The shock over Dred Scott came in large part because the Taney Court tried to overturn the prior consensus on interpreting slavery and redefine citizenship so that it wouldn't belong to blacks.
9
Whether the Constitution enshrined slavery as a national institution or tolerated it as a local institution is a mere historical nit.
What Bernie et al are saying is that when founded in 1787, this nation tolerated the holding of property in men.
That is true.
Quibbling over the shorthand of political speech is a fruitless endeavor for purists and cranks.
What Bernie et al are saying is that when founded in 1787, this nation tolerated the holding of property in men.
That is true.
Quibbling over the shorthand of political speech is a fruitless endeavor for purists and cranks.
15
@Sam I Am: "Quibbling over the shorthand of political speech is a fruitless endeavor for purists and cranks."
Would you defend Mr. Trump's political rhetoric so blithely as that? Mr. Sanders is just another politician using charged language to excite his minions.
Would you defend Mr. Trump's political rhetoric so blithely as that? Mr. Sanders is just another politician using charged language to excite his minions.
1
No, it isn't a quibble. From the beginning of the nation, many leaders recognized the immorality of slavery and wanted to eliminate it. They hoped that banning the slave trade and allowing economic reality to prevail would end the institution.
4
@Steve, no I wouldn't defend Mr. Trump's political rhetoric so blithely, but that's because what is offensive about his rhetoric isn't its form but its substance. Trump's message is xenophobic and reminiscent of fascism. That's a problem, regardless of whether his rhetoric is charged.
@Doug, Mr. Sanders never said or insinuated that no American leaders recognized the immorality of slavery and wanted to eliminate it. Surely there were many who did. But nevertheless, anti-black racism and prejudice were extremely common even among abolitionists, slavery was a foundation of the national economy, and the nation political leaders accommodated the continuation of the institution of slavery.
That's just the reality of it. The shorthand of his presentation doesn't obscure that reality, or 'excite his minions' as Steve puts it. It's just shorthand for it.
@Doug, Mr. Sanders never said or insinuated that no American leaders recognized the immorality of slavery and wanted to eliminate it. Surely there were many who did. But nevertheless, anti-black racism and prejudice were extremely common even among abolitionists, slavery was a foundation of the national economy, and the nation political leaders accommodated the continuation of the institution of slavery.
That's just the reality of it. The shorthand of his presentation doesn't obscure that reality, or 'excite his minions' as Steve puts it. It's just shorthand for it.
This is a silly argument. Of course the people and elites of America back in the 18th century were white supremacists.
5
@Lester: "... the people and elites of America back in the 18th century were white supremacists."
Do you seriously mean to call abolitionists "white supremacists"?
Do you seriously mean to call abolitionists "white supremacists"?
2
For an interesting expansion on the 3/5 rule, see Garry Wills enlightening book called 'Negro President.' He illustrates the ramifications of the 3/5 rule in subsequent political life and elections, specifically how Thomas Jefferson benefited from it politically. Jefferson's less than flattering political side is exposed. And Wills states in the preface that he like Jefferson so it is not written out of a 'gotcha' mentality.
1
I am a history teacher and the reason slavery during the constitutional convention was put aside was because the delegates , most notably, Madison, Washington, Hamilton, Jay, knew if there was a long debate on slavery, the fragile agreement of ratifying a new constitution would fall apart. All the delegates in Philadelphia knew slavery would eventually end but they also knew it would be a long struggle, a struggle the country was not ready for at that time.
So, of course, we wish slavery could have ended alot sooner, but the delegates knew it would be another generation's job to get it done. They saw their job as getting a new constitution written and accepted so the country could continue. People forget the more concerning debate at that time was how strong should the new national government be. If the country broke apart, as it almost did after the revolution, then any other topics would never get debated.
So, of course, we wish slavery could have ended alot sooner, but the delegates knew it would be another generation's job to get it done. They saw their job as getting a new constitution written and accepted so the country could continue. People forget the more concerning debate at that time was how strong should the new national government be. If the country broke apart, as it almost did after the revolution, then any other topics would never get debated.
23
@lisa: "I am a history teacher ..."
Then you should know enough to cite your sources. Historians can be biased or mistaken, so we need to know which ones you are basing your comment on.
Then you should know enough to cite your sources. Historians can be biased or mistaken, so we need to know which ones you are basing your comment on.
Everyone in America is an immigrant (legal or illegal). This includes the initial whites who came from England, they didn't need green cards, because they had weapons and proceeded to butcher the only race born here, the American Indian. Then they brought African people and made slaves of them because the most wise constitutional framers did not consider Blacks as sanctioned human beings, rather considered them property. Yes illegal immigration is wrong, yet illegal immigrants must be dealt in a humane manner.
1
Believe me partner if the white settlers were able to enslave the natives they would have: the problem was that the Indians knew the land which added to thir incorrigibiliy. Therefore the African from a far away land brought to the states, and initially with less resistance were not only more marketable but docile as well.
1
There are no native Americans. Everyone, including the 'Indians' came from somewhere else. This continent did not evolve humans. All came from somewhere else - Indians from Asia, Whites from Spain and Europe, Blacks from Africa. All are immigrants. Indian tribes invaded other tribes' territory and took slaves and people to sacrifice. Blacks in Africa did the same and sold their extra slaves to Europeans and Arabs. The Spanish searched for gold, slaves, and whatever, treated folks badly and were treated badly by those they were trying to conquer. So now it's the 21st century. Haven't you noticed the change for the better?
7
Dream on. For those who prefer facts, read the Notes to the Constitutional Conventions, 1776 to 1789. The founders simply pushed the issue to future generations, after agreeing among themselves that gentlemen shouldn't prevent other gentlemen from making their fortunes - using slavery.
6
The author of this opinion piece is flatly wrong.
The Constitution was a compromise, between free-state northerners and slave-state southerners. Part of that compromise was the "fugitive slave clause", (Art. IV, sec. 2, para. 3) which protected the property rights of the Southerners, even if the slave fled to the North, where state law did not recognize slavery. This was implemented by a federal law, the Fugitive Slave Act, first enacted in 1793 and made more sever in 1850, which permitted a slave owner to go into the Northern states and "take back" a person whom he alleged to be a slave. (In some instances the slave owners "took back" people who had never been slaves.)
It is amazing to me that the author can write this article without mentioning the Dred Scott case. It clearly established that the Constitution and federal law required the people of the North to act to perpetuate slavery, even though they did not permit it in their own territory.
Another part was the clause that prevented Congress, for nearly 20 years, from using its immigration powers to prohibit the importation of slaves.
The Constitution clearly recognized the legitimacy of slavery, and required the people of the North to be complcit in returning slaves to their owners. This wasn't ended until the Emancipation Proclamation took effect in 1863 and the 13th Amendment was adopted in 1865.
The Constitution was a compromise, between free-state northerners and slave-state southerners. Part of that compromise was the "fugitive slave clause", (Art. IV, sec. 2, para. 3) which protected the property rights of the Southerners, even if the slave fled to the North, where state law did not recognize slavery. This was implemented by a federal law, the Fugitive Slave Act, first enacted in 1793 and made more sever in 1850, which permitted a slave owner to go into the Northern states and "take back" a person whom he alleged to be a slave. (In some instances the slave owners "took back" people who had never been slaves.)
It is amazing to me that the author can write this article without mentioning the Dred Scott case. It clearly established that the Constitution and federal law required the people of the North to act to perpetuate slavery, even though they did not permit it in their own territory.
Another part was the clause that prevented Congress, for nearly 20 years, from using its immigration powers to prohibit the importation of slaves.
The Constitution clearly recognized the legitimacy of slavery, and required the people of the North to be complcit in returning slaves to their owners. This wasn't ended until the Emancipation Proclamation took effect in 1863 and the 13th Amendment was adopted in 1865.
5
The article doesn't argue that the Constitution didn't "recognize" slavery, it points out that the Constitution didn't recognize slavery as a Constitutionally protected right that, as such, could not be abolished by individual states. A tremendous achievement in light of the competing interests of the Southern states.
1
But there's a lot of evidence that the Taney court misread the Constitution on the issue of slavery in Dred Scott. That, I think, is why Wilentz doesn't mention Dred Scott. He's concerned with how the framers understood the constitutional provisions on the issue of slavery, not with how the Taney court read these provisions much later. As the comment I posted earlier on this story indicates, I think Wilentz understates how significant the constitutional provisions regarding slavery were in reinforcing slavery, whatever the framers intended to do. But, with regard to Dred Scott, I think Taney read the constitutional provisions regarding slavery extraordinarily broadly. It was clear that there were constitutional provisions which protected slavery but they were limited to specific situations. Taney used these provisions to reach very broad conclusions about whether African Americans had rights of citizenship, conclusions which affected free blacks as well as slaves.
1
Interesting. Well written. Perhaps true in the narrowest of senses. But the NYTimes isn't a forum for sophistry, it's a place where thoughtful people come to discuss and be informed about big ideas. Perhaps this should have been published in a scholarly historical journal, but not the opinion pages of the NYTimes.
4
@Daniel Stoll: "Perhaps true in the narrowest of senses."
How would you interpret Mr. Sanders when he refers to "racist principles"? How is Mr. Sanders's political rhetoric not sophistry?
How would you interpret Mr. Sanders when he refers to "racist principles"? How is Mr. Sanders's political rhetoric not sophistry?
1
I believe Senator Sanders is referring to parts of the constitution like the 3/5 compromise and the fugitive clause as being racist and therefore saying that the nation was founded on racist principles. This article captures the nuance behind these pieces of the constitution, but to somehow argue that the founding principles of our nation weren't racist is willful ignorance.
1
I appreciate your recommendation as to where the bes place for an article like this to placed in terms of a reading venue. However for a nonsubscriber suchh as myself of any scholarly literature and and occasional reader of the Times, I feel that I received an educational enlightment that I probably missed in a history class I took during my days of public education.
2
Slavery was a European Colonial economic institution, that the USA inherited after the American Revolution. Slavery has been a common economic institution throughout the world, throughout history, including Africa. The Liberals have rewritten american history and substituted their propaganda. The alleged genocide of the Native American population is another case of history rewritten as liberal propaganda, when in fact the native population has increased since they became a part of the USA
5
Your first 2 sentences are true facts, your 3rd a vague opinion.
But your last sentence makes no sense: how is current Native population relevant to the fact that there was racially-motivated government-sponsored mass slaughter of Natives in past centuries? If current populations of Jews and Armenians exceed their populations in 1900, does that make their genocides fictional?
But your last sentence makes no sense: how is current Native population relevant to the fact that there was racially-motivated government-sponsored mass slaughter of Natives in past centuries? If current populations of Jews and Armenians exceed their populations in 1900, does that make their genocides fictional?
2
I wish I could say "you must be joking", but sadly, I am sure you are not. I am surprised, however, that someone who so obviously believes in some sort of fantastical alternate history universe takes time to read the New York Times.
So the Trail of Tears never happened? So why are most Cherokee people living in and around Oklahoma instead of the Carolinas where their forbearers lived?For one example out of many.
2
To acknowledge, as Sen. Sanders did, that the US embodied "racist principles" from its inception, is hardly a "myth [that] threatens to poison the current presidential campaign". It is a conversation well worth having about serious issues that continue to plague us today. In the spirit of Howard Zinn, rather than exploring the machinations of the elites as you do, perhaps imagine asking a slave in Georgia, 1787: "you aren't feeling any racist principles, are you?". It might also be appropriate to disclose that you are a man often described as "Hillary Clinton's historian".
14
Howard Zinn?
That explains a lot. Dumbied down marxism. Marx in Soho baby.
That explains a lot. Dumbied down marxism. Marx in Soho baby.
1
I think makes an excellent argument...for Senator Sanders point that is. At least the sentence he quotes. " In many ways..." does not say that slavery is imbedded the Constitution. the sentence Mr. Wilentz quotes, instead implies that USA was "created' on principles not codified, Wilentz then goes on to list all the pro slave policies that DID make their way into the formation of the Nation.
Racism existed in this country in a deep and substantive way ( substantive in its negative effect). Jobs, Education, Social and Economic Mobility.
Martin Luthor King would not have had to do all he did were not for the racism that permitted every aspect of the American way of life.
To deny that, is truly a 'destructive falsehood to borrow a phrase from Mr Wilentz .
Racism existed in this country in a deep and substantive way ( substantive in its negative effect). Jobs, Education, Social and Economic Mobility.
Martin Luthor King would not have had to do all he did were not for the racism that permitted every aspect of the American way of life.
To deny that, is truly a 'destructive falsehood to borrow a phrase from Mr Wilentz .
6
I think one point most posters I have read ignore is that there was no truly "United" States in 1787. If anything, we were more like the EU today, with the possible exception of language: sovereign states, with their own gov'ts, currencies, official religion, etc. They were able to unify somewhat in the battle against the British, but once that was out of the equation, back off on their separate ways.
Slavery is obviously wrong, and it would be nice to look back and see an article or amendment in the original Constitution which banned slavery everywhere (just as I am sure people will look back 2 centuries from now and ask how immoral we were to accept paying a CEO 300x what the average worker makes.) But, then there would have been no political union (like the EU today), the colonies would have split then into Northern and Southern parts, and who knows when slavery would have been ended in the South (or what kind of unstable state the South would have turned into).
Remember, the Constitution was written in 1787, not 2015. We can't project what we've learned in the last 200+ years on the founding fathers. Historically, probably more a disgrace that we needed a Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act 100 years after the 13-15th Amendments were passed.
Slavery is obviously wrong, and it would be nice to look back and see an article or amendment in the original Constitution which banned slavery everywhere (just as I am sure people will look back 2 centuries from now and ask how immoral we were to accept paying a CEO 300x what the average worker makes.) But, then there would have been no political union (like the EU today), the colonies would have split then into Northern and Southern parts, and who knows when slavery would have been ended in the South (or what kind of unstable state the South would have turned into).
Remember, the Constitution was written in 1787, not 2015. We can't project what we've learned in the last 200+ years on the founding fathers. Historically, probably more a disgrace that we needed a Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act 100 years after the 13-15th Amendments were passed.
9
There is a difference between a *nation* and a *constitution.* The former is a broad sociological term encompassing demographics, economics, culture. The latter refers to the juridical form assumed by a nation.
As a nation the United States was “founded” in avarice and social irresponsibility. One of the chief grievances referenced in the Declaration was the Quebec Act the sheer tyranny of which forbade real estate development in the Ohio Valley then occupied by “Indian Savages.” As for paying taxes for the common good? Pure despotism!
The Constitution, however, was grounded in English Law and political history, most specifically Magna Carta and the Settlement of 1688 which, Americans might be astonished to learn, provided the blueprint for the Constitution of 1788.
Sociologically, most Americans considered the African to be mentally inferior and that view qualifies as a racism.
But nothing in the Constitution is grounded in, based on, or derived from such a racist construct. There is a difference between recognizing (and to that extent legitimizing) de-facto realities and drawing breath and purpose from them.
The three-fifths clause did not state that Africans were 3/5th “of a human being” (as President Clinton once intoned). It provided that 3/5 “of the total number” of slaves should be counted. Is English so hard to understand?
As a nation the United States was “founded” in avarice and social irresponsibility. One of the chief grievances referenced in the Declaration was the Quebec Act the sheer tyranny of which forbade real estate development in the Ohio Valley then occupied by “Indian Savages.” As for paying taxes for the common good? Pure despotism!
The Constitution, however, was grounded in English Law and political history, most specifically Magna Carta and the Settlement of 1688 which, Americans might be astonished to learn, provided the blueprint for the Constitution of 1788.
Sociologically, most Americans considered the African to be mentally inferior and that view qualifies as a racism.
But nothing in the Constitution is grounded in, based on, or derived from such a racist construct. There is a difference between recognizing (and to that extent legitimizing) de-facto realities and drawing breath and purpose from them.
The three-fifths clause did not state that Africans were 3/5th “of a human being” (as President Clinton once intoned). It provided that 3/5 “of the total number” of slaves should be counted. Is English so hard to understand?
6
@Chip: "The three-fifths clause did not state that Africans were 3/5th “of a human being” (as President Clinton once intoned). It provided that 3/5 “of the total number” of slaves should be counted. Is English so hard to understand? "
Mathmatically,
3/5 of the whole,
is the same as,
the sum of,
3/5 of the individual.
So, yeah, Clinton's intonation is correct.
Mathmatically,
3/5 of the whole,
is the same as,
the sum of,
3/5 of the individual.
So, yeah, Clinton's intonation is correct.
1
Sorry, but you need to read your history. The south wanted each slave counted as a member of its population for the purpose of determining the number of Representatives elected from each state. The north wanted slaves excluded. The compromise is that the south could count/ 3/5s of its slaves toward determining the number of representatives. The 3/5 is a compromise between 0 and 1, and it has no other metaphorical meaning.
1
@Doug: "The 3/5 is a compromise between 0 and 1, and it has no other metaphorical meaning."
So Doug,
if you / a family member / a friend were
"counted as a 3/5 member of the population",
you would ascribe no metaphorical meaning that,
right ?
So Doug,
if you / a family member / a friend were
"counted as a 3/5 member of the population",
you would ascribe no metaphorical meaning that,
right ?
Those who claim the US is permanently tainted by the inclusion of property rights inclusive of human beings in the Constitution almost universally fail to mention the Bill of Rights.
Without the Bill of Rights, most Americans, of all races, risked a life of slavery, or indentured servitude, or both. This quickly became evident to the Founding Fathers.
The Bill of Rights and, by extension, the Amendment process, rendered the Republic of the United States into the Democratic Republic of the United States of America.
And while it may have taken the Civil War to end secession, it was the 13th 14th, and 15th Amendments that ended the possibility of slavery forever.
It is the Amendment process which makes the US Constitution a living, breathing tool of human freedom. Despite what any disingenuous totalitarian might say to the contrary.
Without the Bill of Rights, most Americans, of all races, risked a life of slavery, or indentured servitude, or both. This quickly became evident to the Founding Fathers.
The Bill of Rights and, by extension, the Amendment process, rendered the Republic of the United States into the Democratic Republic of the United States of America.
And while it may have taken the Civil War to end secession, it was the 13th 14th, and 15th Amendments that ended the possibility of slavery forever.
It is the Amendment process which makes the US Constitution a living, breathing tool of human freedom. Despite what any disingenuous totalitarian might say to the contrary.
7
Slavery was never a nationally supported institution but it began to become one in the 1850's, with the Dred Scott decision, just before the Civil War. The thirteen colonies and then the new coastal states that made up the U.S. all had different histories and attitudes regarding slavery. The New England states relied upon the sea and trading but had no plantations of significant size and had other cultural reasons causing them to abhor the existence of slavery in the new country while the those from the Chesapeake Bay south all relied heavily upon slave supported plantation endeavors. The country could not have a consensus regarding slavery and so the states agreed to disagree and to leave the whole issue aside except in one respect, the slave holding states could count slaves as three fifths as much as free persons for determining representatives to Congress. Over time, the lack of any legal consensus about slavery resulted in the Civil War and the amendments to the Constitution that made slavery illegal and better defined the rights of all to full participation legally and to extend protections with respect to the national government to the states, too.
The reason for the assertion that slavery was an national institution is driven by the desire to afford equity for the descendants of slavery, and of a century of legitimated racial discrimination, national material compensation to atone to their descendants with wealth created post Civil War.
The reason for the assertion that slavery was an national institution is driven by the desire to afford equity for the descendants of slavery, and of a century of legitimated racial discrimination, national material compensation to atone to their descendants with wealth created post Civil War.
2
Bravo to Sean Wilentz for destroying hysterical, exaggerated claims about the role of slavery in American history. The truth needs no exaggeration: it is painful enough.
Repeated, exaggerated claims about American culpability have become hallmarks of the American far Left that have weakened the Democratic party, helped elect Republican Presidents, and, more generally, discredited liberalism in the eyes of numerous Americans. Thank you, Mr. Wilentz, for this article.
Repeated, exaggerated claims about American culpability have become hallmarks of the American far Left that have weakened the Democratic party, helped elect Republican Presidents, and, more generally, discredited liberalism in the eyes of numerous Americans. Thank you, Mr. Wilentz, for this article.
8
Yes, you can only defend Wilentz's position by denouncing the opposing view as "hysterical, exaggerated claims." Try dealing with the facts, sir, as discussed in numbers of these comments. Try dealing with this one fact: the 3/5 compromise gave to slavery a bonus in the House of Representatives and in the Electoral College. Evidently, the North, whatever disdain they may have had for the peculiar institution in their own states, felt that national unity with the slaveholders was important enough to make such an offer in the Constitution. No? What say you, Mr. Alexander?
Constitutional history, while important, is not the totality of history, and in many instances is merely participant in, commentator on and even irrelevant to larger operative realities. The enslavement of African people built the American (not just Southern) economy, regardless of how it was treated (or ignored) by the Constitution. This was racism, and it was foundational to our society. The systematic stripping of the property, rights and lives of the native people was an essential element in establishing what we now know as the United States of America. Also racism, also a fundamental necessity in creating the country in which we now live. Bernie Sanders is right. Wilentz makes an academic argument that, as most academic arguments, sets its own parameters so narrowly (for the sake of its own soundness) that it renders itself irrelevant. Our nation was not founded solely on racism, but it was founded significantly on racism, to the extent that we would not recognize the 'America' of a non-racist founding.
7
Reminds me of Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman!" Slavery not a "national institution"? The United States not founded on "racist principles"? Explain away the 3/5 compromise -- giving the South and slavery additional political power in the House of Representatives and in the Electoral College, enough to make the slaveholder Jefferson president in 1800. Explain away Pinckney's campaign for the constitution's ratification in South Carolina: the constitution, said he, gave slaveholders security in their property such as they'd never held before. Ending the slave trade? The slaveholding South was split on this, with Virginians favoring abolition of the trade, not for moral reasons, to be sure. Not a national institution? Just the principal source of foreign trade revenue; just the economic institution which built Northern shipping and finance. Yes, the South seceded in defense of its right to own slaves, but the North did not go to war to abolish slavery. Douglass, speaking in 1865, averred that the Civil War had been entered into "on both sides" in defense of slavery: the South to take slavery out of the Union, the North, to keep it in the Union.
4
You are living in the past Mr Wilentz. As a true liberal, your column is nothing more than a feeble attempt to discredit others & drive one more class warfare wedge in between Americans by rehashing something long ago settle most likely in order to justify sending your own children to lilly white private schools like Arnie Duncan does. And by the way, there were thousands of Northern slave owners.
1
did you even read the article?
5
We all love it when a racist accuses people of waging "race war" because they mention the actual race war.
3
"And by the way, there were thousands of Northern slave owners."
That depends on if you consider MIssouri, Kentucky and Maryland northern states or not. Most people don't. In the non-border northern states, slavery had been abolished in all of them before the Civil War. Therefore, if "northerners" owned slaves, they had probably already moved South to protect their "property." But that, by definition, would make them southerners.
That depends on if you consider MIssouri, Kentucky and Maryland northern states or not. Most people don't. In the non-border northern states, slavery had been abolished in all of them before the Civil War. Therefore, if "northerners" owned slaves, they had probably already moved South to protect their "property." But that, by definition, would make them southerners.
1
Three-fifths of the time, this makes sense. While the Constitution as framed in 1787 (and amended soon thereafter by the Bill of Rights) did not recognize slavery as an institution, yet at the same time its silence on slavery was deafening. Silence gives assent. While many rights were enumerated, equality was not one of them, nor was freedom. The Ninth Amendment gave slave-owners a dodge, and the 10th gave states a get-out-Union-free card.
I note that Lincoln did not quote the Constitution at Gettysburg. He quoted the Declaration of Independence. He had to go with the older document because there was scant in the newer one to bolster his argument.
I note that Lincoln did not quote the Constitution at Gettysburg. He quoted the Declaration of Independence. He had to go with the older document because there was scant in the newer one to bolster his argument.
5
It wasn't silent--there were "free" (which included indentured servants and Native Americans ) and "other" persons.
2
The Constitution is also silent on rape, murder, arson, robbery, assault, fraud, etc. etc. etc. Does that mean that it also condones those crimes?
4
"Without that antislavery outcome in 1787, slavery would not have reached “ultimate extinction” in 1865."
Then how does the author explain that many countries without that magnificent constitution managed to abolish slavery before the U.S. For example, if the U.S. had remained a British colony, its slavery would have been abolished in 1833 with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.
Then how does the author explain that many countries without that magnificent constitution managed to abolish slavery before the U.S. For example, if the U.S. had remained a British colony, its slavery would have been abolished in 1833 with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.
8
The 1833 abolishment of slavery in England, quite beyond the Wilberforce factor, may have been influenced by a desire to suppress the economic success that it's former colony was having. As we see in our present international community, no stone is left unturned that may hurt your "competitors" both economically and politically. And the fact that we eventually embraced the inherent equality (or so it could be inferred) of all men and women in our Bill Of Rights it makes one wonder why Supreme Court Candidates can describe themselves as strict constitutionalists and not infer an exceptance of racism and sexism with such a view.
3
Definitely don't want to claim the moral superiority of the British. However, many countries abolished slavery before the U.S. (a relative late comer when it came to abolition). It seems more a global trend than a unique feature of the American constitution.
Wilentz's comments are wishful thinking. Slavery existed at the time of the founding of the US. No one tried to hide it, nor was abolition a serious movement in the late 18th Century. Those who may have opposed it entered - willingly - into a political arrangement with those who supported it. Implicit in that arrangement was the notion that while slavery may not have been explicitly sanctioned by the Constitution, protection for its existence was woven into the document. In fact, if those who opposed slavery had insisted on a repudiation of slavery, the Constitution could never have been ratified, and the US as it exists today would not exist. The post Civil War Amendments dealt with the issue, lets not try to stretch history and the Constitution completely out of shape.
12
The author's too-cute-by-half argument would have it that the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were frivolous, unnecessary amendments to a Constitution simply misunderstood. This is as pernicious and willful a distortion of American history as the tendency on the academic left to throw a temper tantrum over the bigotries of generations long dead, scream everything bad known about them, and try to exorcise them from the curriculum and every bit of national iconography, as if doing so might heroically heal the nation. Between disingenuous whitewash and childish magical thinking there's not much to choose. Both betoken an inability to face the past squarely for what it was and a deep, mind-numbing infatuation with ourselves and our currently "trending" ideological appetites.
7
When you win a disputed point of law by war, it sheds very little light on the document over which your are arguing. The US S. Ct. dismissed the Dredd Scott case (1857) because it concluded that persons of African decent were not citizens under the Constitution and never could become citizens. The Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to say what the law is. The fugitive slave clause (Art IV Sec.2, clause 3) recognized slavery throughout the USA.
Even in states that had outlawed slavery, a person traveling with his slaves had his ownership rights respected, contrary to the local law, a legal concept known as "soujourning".
And notwithstanding any legal argument to the contrary, the economy of the south was built on the backs of enslaved humans. To suggest otherwise is pure nonsense.
Even in states that had outlawed slavery, a person traveling with his slaves had his ownership rights respected, contrary to the local law, a legal concept known as "soujourning".
And notwithstanding any legal argument to the contrary, the economy of the south was built on the backs of enslaved humans. To suggest otherwise is pure nonsense.
10
There is nothing in Art III that states, or even implies, that the Supreme Court has the "authority to say what the law is." It simply grants the Supreme Court the "judicial Power" and then spells out the scope of that power and the jurisdiction of the court. Nowhere does it state that such scope encompasses "what the law is," nor does it designate the Court as the final arbiter of the what the Constitution says. The Marshall Court's declaration that it had the power of judicial review, and Jefferson's complicity in it, was a strategic move with enormous consequences, not all of them good.
Bernie will rue his comment; and so will the Democrats should he win their nomination for president. Sanders, his fellow socialists and the liberals commenting here of course see his statement as factual; so what's the fuss? The fuss is the revelation of Sander's ultra left beliefs - mostly because there was no purpose for this pronouncement. It was casually off the cuff and offered as truth. Apparently and obliviously he did not appreciate that he was providing a loaded gun for the eventual GOP candidate?
His statement will not play well in Peoria. Above all, it reveals Sanders as just another preachy left-wing know it all from ultra liberal New York who is absolutely clueless about fly-over country where lots of electoral votes reside.
His statement will not play well in Peoria. Above all, it reveals Sanders as just another preachy left-wing know it all from ultra liberal New York who is absolutely clueless about fly-over country where lots of electoral votes reside.
The revelation of his ultra left beliefs? It "reveals" him as "another preachy left-wing know it all"? Where have you been the last 30 years? The guy is a freaking Socialist! You can't get any more left-wing than that (short of communism)! He's been a well known Socialist for 30 years! He's in the US Senate - he hasn't been exactly hiding out. There's no "revelations" about Bernie at this stage. Anyone who doesn't know he's an "ultra liberal" is either stupid or dead.
2
Win or lose, Bernie will not rue his comments, because, unlike so many other candidates from both sides of the aisle, he means what he says. Obviously, you don't agree with his opinion, but the alternative is supporting the likes of Trump and Bush (or even, heaven forbid, Clinton), who lie every time they say they have your interests at heart.
Slavery brings out the worst in a nation and especially in that portion of a population who choose to own other people. It demonstrates extreme greed and perpetuates inequality. Even before the Civil War, the slave owners in southern states raged to extend slavery into the new territories of the country. Will the greed of the wealthy ever be satiated? By the signs in today's world, it appears not likely.
4
What Sanders exhibits has become a recurring problem: 1st or 2nd generation immigrants, or other relatively recent arrivals, who don't have family history in the US, project the issues that went on in their own family histories in other countries, other parts of the world, onto the US. This is an issue with both Obama and Sanders and also with Hillary Clinton (she had all-immigrant grandparents?), Rubio, Cruz, Trump, etc.
The original Const does sanction slavery (it both allows it and prohibits it) but what it does not do is refer to race or sex; only the word "person" is used.
People pretend that the Mason-Dixon line didn't exist, ignore why it was there in the first place (i.e. the role of the 1689 English Bill of Rights of Person) & the different legal systems in place North of M-D v. the South and Appalachia (and even North of M-D, different systems, such as the Puritan systems in New England v. Penn/NJ).
The North had to compete with the South after having abolished slavery (either immediately or without bringing new slaves into the system) in 1787-1790 and then lost 300K lives defeating it in the South; the work ethic, sacrifice this required in the North was substantial & they thus have a lot of resentment when they are accused of being slavers or racist.
The original Const does sanction slavery (it both allows it and prohibits it) but what it does not do is refer to race or sex; only the word "person" is used.
People pretend that the Mason-Dixon line didn't exist, ignore why it was there in the first place (i.e. the role of the 1689 English Bill of Rights of Person) & the different legal systems in place North of M-D v. the South and Appalachia (and even North of M-D, different systems, such as the Puritan systems in New England v. Penn/NJ).
The North had to compete with the South after having abolished slavery (either immediately or without bringing new slaves into the system) in 1787-1790 and then lost 300K lives defeating it in the South; the work ethic, sacrifice this required in the North was substantial & they thus have a lot of resentment when they are accused of being slavers or racist.
1
I[m a political scientist who teaches courses in American government, American political thought, constitutional law, and civil liberties. So I'm well-acquainted with this argument.
The way I make sense of is that there are, in a way, two constitutions: the aspirational Constitution and the Constitution as legal code.
Lincoln and Douglas largely invoked that aspirational Constitution - and I'll buy Wilentz's argument as long it's limited to that document.
But the document as legal code clearly supported slavery. And while many here have cited the 3/5ths clause as support for that position - and it is - the specific section of the Constitution that most clearly led to the North's clear discomfort with slavery, and thus to the Civil War, was the Fugitive Slave Clause, which held that:
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.
The 3/5th clause was racist, but then it's primarily about creating a form of malapportionment, a concept found in the Constitution in another archaic, anti-democratic institution, the Senate, which provides Wyoming the same representation as California. There's no getting around the way in which the Fugitive Slave Clause implicated everyone, North and South, in the worst abuses of slavery.
The way I make sense of is that there are, in a way, two constitutions: the aspirational Constitution and the Constitution as legal code.
Lincoln and Douglas largely invoked that aspirational Constitution - and I'll buy Wilentz's argument as long it's limited to that document.
But the document as legal code clearly supported slavery. And while many here have cited the 3/5ths clause as support for that position - and it is - the specific section of the Constitution that most clearly led to the North's clear discomfort with slavery, and thus to the Civil War, was the Fugitive Slave Clause, which held that:
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.
The 3/5th clause was racist, but then it's primarily about creating a form of malapportionment, a concept found in the Constitution in another archaic, anti-democratic institution, the Senate, which provides Wyoming the same representation as California. There's no getting around the way in which the Fugitive Slave Clause implicated everyone, North and South, in the worst abuses of slavery.
7
I think it's important to distinguish between the intent of the constitutional provisions dealing with the issue of slavery and the actual consequences of these provisions in practice. I would agree with Wilentz that the framers of the Constitution sought to avoid recognizing slavery as a national institution and instead treated slavery as an institution created by state law (with the implication that, although the Constitution prohibited the federal government from interfering with slavery in certain ways, it didn't actually sanction slavery). Nevertheless, the constitutional provisions on slavery strengthened slavery in many ways, ways the framers of the Constitution probably didn't envision or intend. Also, it seems to me that Sanders is making a broader point about the role racism played in early American political thought and that, while examining the framers' efforts to avoid treating slavery as a national institution in the Constitution may qualify Sanders' point somewhat, it doesn't really refute Sanders' point. Whether slavery was regarded as a national or state institution in early America, slavery nevertheless existed in early America and the framers of the Constitution believed they could make compromises on the issue to ensure the Southern delegates' support for the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention.
8
While I am an admirer of the Professor's work, he fails to prove his point: "Far from a proslavery compact of “racist principles,” the Constitution was based on a repudiation of the idea of a nation dedicated to the proposition of property in humans." Indeed, he proves Sander's point.
The unstated proposition is that if slavery was not intended to be a nationwide institution then America was not founded upon racist principles. That isn't a reasonable claim, and hardly logical.
Here, Wilentz conflates "racist" with the narrow question of whether slavery was an inter-state or intra-state proposition. Then, the Professor proceeds to marshal his historical facts to prove the later question ... by using evidence that with every turn underscores the racist, "white supremacy" roots of the nation.
Sanders 1, Wilentz 0.
The unstated proposition is that if slavery was not intended to be a nationwide institution then America was not founded upon racist principles. That isn't a reasonable claim, and hardly logical.
Here, Wilentz conflates "racist" with the narrow question of whether slavery was an inter-state or intra-state proposition. Then, the Professor proceeds to marshal his historical facts to prove the later question ... by using evidence that with every turn underscores the racist, "white supremacy" roots of the nation.
Sanders 1, Wilentz 0.
5
The Constitution is neutral on slavery - neither pro. nor con. It would be preferably in many ways if the Constitution were clearly anti-slavery. But if it were, the southern states would not have joined the union, something like the Confederate States of America would likely exist today, and we would have had no Civil War (and likely, no end to slavery where it existed). Hard to say that would be a better outcome.
In any case, it's a stretch to interpret the Constitutions's neutrality about slavery in a way that makes racism a founding principle of the nation.
In any case, it's a stretch to interpret the Constitutions's neutrality about slavery in a way that makes racism a founding principle of the nation.
Runaway slaves were not returned?
Slave babies weren't interest earned?
Dred Scott in the North was free
According to Justice Taney?
Bernie Sanders did misspeak?
Sean, your argument is weak.
Slave babies weren't interest earned?
Dred Scott in the North was free
According to Justice Taney?
Bernie Sanders did misspeak?
Sean, your argument is weak.
9
Slave children were commonly referred to as "the increase."
1
Slavery was legal all over the world so when the Constitution was written it was perfectly natural that it would be legal here.
The Constitution didn't make legal it just didn't prohibit it.
The fact it wasn't legal in all the states is a proof that this country was not founded with that in mind.
The Constitution didn't make legal it just didn't prohibit it.
The fact it wasn't legal in all the states is a proof that this country was not founded with that in mind.
5
Sanders said "racist principles", not slavery. The author admits that at that time "most white Americans presumed African inferiority." This seems to support Sanders' statement, not indicate that it is "one of the most destructive falsehoods in all of American history".
9
Significant point: The south did not rebel to preserve slavery. The south rebelled to preserve their economy. Note that Lincoln's generals DELIBERATELY destroyed the southern economy.
1
lost cause dead ender. the war was about slavery. read the secession documents of all the states in the confederacy. yet this myth persists.
5
Lets be honest and stop being naive. The Confederate states rebelled to preserve their way of life (Old Dixie) which was built on the enslavement of Africans and African Americans. You should also note that Northern and Southern businesses profited from the marketing of King Cotton during the 18th Century.
2
John, the southern economy was based on slavery, so rebelling to save their economy is the same thing. Seems obvious to me.
1
Wilentz sets up a straw man to debunk with his quotation from Bernie Sanders, "Bernie Sanders has charged, 'in many ways was created, and I’m sorry to have to say this, from way back, on racist principles, that’s a fact.'” Racist principles are not the same thing as chattel slavery enshrined in law, and the history of the country subsequent to the Civil War, from Jim Crow through the explicitly racist Federal Housing Policies that lasted into the 1960s to the disproportionate number of African-Americans killed by police or incarcerated and put to death by legal authority yet today belie Wilentz's thesis.
4
I guess your argument is what does the term founded on mean. Willentz sees the term referring to the legal document, the constitution. I am not quite sure what the basis for your definition of founded on is. I very much doubt that the colonists who came to America to found what is the 13 colonies and became the USA did so on the principle that they wanted to own slaves. Slavery became an economic reality for this country very early on even before the Pilgrims settled but it can hardly be called a basis or cause for the founding of this country. Black racism is even more remote from the basis for the colonist founding America, perhaps racism in ignoring the rights of the American indian may have induced some to come but I can not see anyone coming to America so they could be discriminatory against Blacks.
This very argument led to Lincoln pushing through the 13th Amendment. He wanted to settle the debate for all time. But as stated in this piece, slavery was not established as a constitutional right. It is not necessary to bring the constitution into the discussion to recognized that racism was one of the principles the nation was founded on.
3
you forgot something very important ... if South Carolina and Georgia had made good on their threat to not support Jefferson's Declaration because he was going to mention the abolition of slavery, this United States of ours might have been stillborn. so, slavery was an important issue at the very beginning of this country, and it influenced everything from then on. the South, for the most part, became a region totally dependent on the forced labor of African slaves. nothing you said can erase that.
2
So let this idea inspire others to combat human trafficking, sexual slavery, debt bondage, domestic servitude -- the modern-day slavery!
3
I think Mr. Wilentz is confusing "slavery" and "racism", perhaps not to confuse but to provide a conversation opening.
The notion that racism was part of the founding of this country stems from the fact that slavery was not rejected, not abolished explicitly in the Constitution. Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence blamed the British King for imposing slavery on the Americas and for allegedly turning the slaves to revolt against their owners. This was taken out in the final version of the Declaration. Now Jefferson owned slaves and did not liberate them even in his will upon his death (which George Washington had the decency to do, except he wanted them to remain to serve his wife Martha until she died.) Yet Jefferson had taken an anti-slavery position while drafting the Declaration.
All references to slavery were removed and a "whitewashed" (unfortunate pun really) version was released, and that was dramatic and earth-shaking enough. But the fact that the references were removed and slavery was "postponed" is proof of racism and racist principles in action.
None of this is to diminish the significance of the events of 1776 and beyond. Creation is a messy process and bad choices get made in order to make the process succeed in the first place. That is what they did, but there is no need to deceive ourselves about what really happened. They were men of great consequence, but let us not apotheosize them to mollify our childish insecurities.
The notion that racism was part of the founding of this country stems from the fact that slavery was not rejected, not abolished explicitly in the Constitution. Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence blamed the British King for imposing slavery on the Americas and for allegedly turning the slaves to revolt against their owners. This was taken out in the final version of the Declaration. Now Jefferson owned slaves and did not liberate them even in his will upon his death (which George Washington had the decency to do, except he wanted them to remain to serve his wife Martha until she died.) Yet Jefferson had taken an anti-slavery position while drafting the Declaration.
All references to slavery were removed and a "whitewashed" (unfortunate pun really) version was released, and that was dramatic and earth-shaking enough. But the fact that the references were removed and slavery was "postponed" is proof of racism and racist principles in action.
None of this is to diminish the significance of the events of 1776 and beyond. Creation is a messy process and bad choices get made in order to make the process succeed in the first place. That is what they did, but there is no need to deceive ourselves about what really happened. They were men of great consequence, but let us not apotheosize them to mollify our childish insecurities.
3
Terribly disappointing column by Mr. Wilentz. Not one reference to Article 4, Section 2. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
We read:
"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."
Mr. Wilentz's conclusion, is based on the false (if not egregious assertion) that the nation was founded with an "antislavery outcome in 1787" and that the it was this 1787 based conclusion led to the ultimate extinction of slavery in 1865. We it is true that the Civil War ended Slavery.
However, it is my perspective, that the Founding Fathers kicked the slavery issue down the road. The birth of Nation had a choice:
ONE nation, - with slavery
TWO nations - one without and one with slavery.
Therefore the only choice is One Union, with Slavery to defeat Britain, establish One Nation. No one wanted United States of "Europe" with its regional fractions.
Finally, what Lincoln and Calhoun thought about this in the Constitution is actually moot. The entire period from 1787 to 1860 was all about deal cutting to get statehood evenly as possible pro-slavery and anti-slavery.
In the end, Lincoln and millions in the North, large numbers even in the South, recognized faced the reality outrageous inhumanity must END.
We read:
"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."
Mr. Wilentz's conclusion, is based on the false (if not egregious assertion) that the nation was founded with an "antislavery outcome in 1787" and that the it was this 1787 based conclusion led to the ultimate extinction of slavery in 1865. We it is true that the Civil War ended Slavery.
However, it is my perspective, that the Founding Fathers kicked the slavery issue down the road. The birth of Nation had a choice:
ONE nation, - with slavery
TWO nations - one without and one with slavery.
Therefore the only choice is One Union, with Slavery to defeat Britain, establish One Nation. No one wanted United States of "Europe" with its regional fractions.
Finally, what Lincoln and Calhoun thought about this in the Constitution is actually moot. The entire period from 1787 to 1860 was all about deal cutting to get statehood evenly as possible pro-slavery and anti-slavery.
In the end, Lincoln and millions in the North, large numbers even in the South, recognized faced the reality outrageous inhumanity must END.
7
Slavery was the universal institution in Africa, the Middle East, and other places around the world. African slaves bound for the French, English, and American ports were purchased from their African slave owners; it was just business. Blacks here in America owned slaves. Whites were also slaves or indentured servants in the early days of our nation, as well as in the Middle East. But, here, it was a states' business, not sanctioned by the federal government. Many states did not allow the owning of humans by other humans. Now, none does. So, what is this nonsense that is being bleated on the airwaves, in candidates' speeches, and by protest marchers? It is just ignorance.
3
Two simple queries:
1.) What about the fugitive slave clause? "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."
2.) And what about the fugitive slave acts that the clause authorized?
1.) What about the fugitive slave clause? "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."
2.) And what about the fugitive slave acts that the clause authorized?
Frederick Douglass--a fugitive slave himself--argued that that clause did NOT apply to fugitive slaves at all, but to indentured servants and apprentices who had broken their contracts. If he was wrong, he never would have been allowed to live freely in the north for decades before the Civil War.
One reason for the 3/5 rule was the Southerners fear that Northerners would dominate elections and outlaw slavery. This fear drove much of American politics from the founding to the firing on Ft. Sumter. The slave trade was ended in 1807. Unfortunately Maryland and Virginia found it end of importation of slavery very profitable.
Many of the responses to Professor Wilentz's essay focus on the compromises on slavery incorporated into the Constitution. As Kevin Rothstein points out, those compromises were the price of union.
The question is, were they worth it? For decades, southern dominance of the presidency made it seem obvious that the southern delegates to the 1787 convention had secured a better deal for their section than had delegates from the north.
By the 1850s, however, the balance of power was clearly shifting in favor of the free states. No southerner was elected president after Zachary Taylor in 1848, and by the late 50s senators from free states outnumbered those from slave states, with the imbalance bound to grow as time passed. Also, northern opinion was increasingly hostile to slavery, especially after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 forced citizens to aid in the recovery of fugitives.
In the absence of the Union, none of this would have mattered. But the slaveholders' growing sense of isolation contributed to their disastrous decision to secede. The civil war that resulted settled the fate of slavery.
The compromises of 1787 now appeared in a different light. Had two separate countries formed in 1787, there could have been no war to end slavery. It could easily have survived into the 20th century.
I am not claiming that the Founders foresaw this outcome. But their instinct for compromise ultimately benefited even the slaves, although it required two generations.
The question is, were they worth it? For decades, southern dominance of the presidency made it seem obvious that the southern delegates to the 1787 convention had secured a better deal for their section than had delegates from the north.
By the 1850s, however, the balance of power was clearly shifting in favor of the free states. No southerner was elected president after Zachary Taylor in 1848, and by the late 50s senators from free states outnumbered those from slave states, with the imbalance bound to grow as time passed. Also, northern opinion was increasingly hostile to slavery, especially after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 forced citizens to aid in the recovery of fugitives.
In the absence of the Union, none of this would have mattered. But the slaveholders' growing sense of isolation contributed to their disastrous decision to secede. The civil war that resulted settled the fate of slavery.
The compromises of 1787 now appeared in a different light. Had two separate countries formed in 1787, there could have been no war to end slavery. It could easily have survived into the 20th century.
I am not claiming that the Founders foresaw this outcome. But their instinct for compromise ultimately benefited even the slaves, although it required two generations.
2
I believe that the economic force driving the revolution of 1776 was based on slavery. In 1774 Judge Masefield in England ruled that English common law did not recognize slavery. This ruling created a bond between New England shippers (triangle trade) and Southern and West Indian planters (neo-aristocracy)
Slavery was recognized as morally wrong by many, but also as an economic necessity.
Slavery was recognized as morally wrong by many, but also as an economic necessity.
Many of Professors Wilentz's critics seem to be unfamiliar with the arguments, well known by him, made before the Civil War by Lincoln and the Republicans that slavery was a local institution that was not enshrined in the constitution. Theodore Weld wrote in 1838 that slavery was the creation of state laws and found no justification in the Constitution, which was based on principles of universal moral law. He also argued that the Constitution never saw slaves as property. Abolition would not take private property but restore it to those who were deprived of its fruits. In 1840 Madison's notes of 1789 were published, he wrote that it"was wrong to admit in the Constitution that their could be property in men." J. Q. Adams argued before the Supreme Court in 1841 that the terms slavery and slave "are studiously excluded from the Constitution," which recognizes them only as persons. Justice McLean in a subsequent case reproduced Adams's argument. The argument that the Constitution did not recognize slavery was a echoed in every abolition argument and endorsed by Lincoln and the Republicans. It was the Democrats who claimed that the Constitution created a property right to the ownership of slaves and thus supported the Dred Scott decision. Had the Democratic candidate,McClellan, won the presidency in 1864, the Union would have been preserved but slavery would have remained intact. James Oakes's book Freedom National thoroughly examines this debate over slavery.
2
That the Lincoln and opponents of slavery advanced a particular Constitutional legal argument does not make it one bit more true of the Constitution nor of the Constitutional generation. Notably, Lincoln's argument was settled in blood, not in Court. It's curious, to say the least, to cite Madison's contemporaneous notes that it "was wrong to admit in the Constitution that there could be property in men" in support of a contention that slavery was not admitted into the Constitution.
1
This is shameful sophistry.
The facts asserted are all true, but the conclusion is ridiculous.
Yes, there was a struggle over the place and future of slavery involved in writing the constitution. Yes, the states where slave-holding was greatest did not get everything they demanded and the resulting document artfully dodges the key question.
But founding principles are not just the literal meanings of words on paper. They are the ideas that inform the de facto arrangements that justify themselves by those words, whether they illuminate or obscure reality.
The United States was founded on racist principles. It was founded on the principle that on property-owning white men were to be full citizens. It was founded on the principle that the lands of the indigenous peoples of the as yet uncolonized portions of the continent could and should be rightly seized so that those same property-owning white men might prosper. It was founded on the principle that the trade in enslaved African labor and its products was an acceptable foundation on which to build a commercial empire.
The Union did not go to war against the Confederacy in order to abolish slavery, but rater to keep it within the Union. It only became a war against slavery when the enslaved African laborers on whose shoulders the economy of the Confederacy rested made it such by fleeing the plantations, crossing battle lines and offering their services to a Union that needed them to win.
The facts asserted are all true, but the conclusion is ridiculous.
Yes, there was a struggle over the place and future of slavery involved in writing the constitution. Yes, the states where slave-holding was greatest did not get everything they demanded and the resulting document artfully dodges the key question.
But founding principles are not just the literal meanings of words on paper. They are the ideas that inform the de facto arrangements that justify themselves by those words, whether they illuminate or obscure reality.
The United States was founded on racist principles. It was founded on the principle that on property-owning white men were to be full citizens. It was founded on the principle that the lands of the indigenous peoples of the as yet uncolonized portions of the continent could and should be rightly seized so that those same property-owning white men might prosper. It was founded on the principle that the trade in enslaved African labor and its products was an acceptable foundation on which to build a commercial empire.
The Union did not go to war against the Confederacy in order to abolish slavery, but rater to keep it within the Union. It only became a war against slavery when the enslaved African laborers on whose shoulders the economy of the Confederacy rested made it such by fleeing the plantations, crossing battle lines and offering their services to a Union that needed them to win.
4
I get the argument--unfortunately, slavery operated throughout the Catholic part of the New World, we had indentured servitude all along, rejecting slavery got edited out of the Declaration, maintaining slavery got legitimated by the Constitution, not extending slavery isn't the same thing as abolishing it, and both North and South profitted enormously (and built many of their institutions upon) due to the Triangle Trade.
Oh, and Jim Crow didn't exactly mark the glorious end of slavery. Nor did the wage-slavery that immiserated millions her and abroad.
Let's stop trying to scrub history white, please.
Oh, and Jim Crow didn't exactly mark the glorious end of slavery. Nor did the wage-slavery that immiserated millions her and abroad.
Let's stop trying to scrub history white, please.
1
Professor Wilentz I believe improperly downplays that significance of the 3/5s clause. Perhaps the South wanted more, but the clause as settled gave the South an important political advantage, and this reflected in the electoral college. The result: Eight American Presidents were slaveowners from southern states.
The Constitution of the United States is a legal document derived from negotiations among thirteen distinct entities. It required diplomacy and compromise. No state got everything they wanted from the document. Did it have shortcomings? Yes. Did it adequately address slavery? Not by today's standards. The world view in America was quite different in 1787. The fact that they reached any form of agreement at all on a Constitution was remarkable. One thing this document did provide for was that the nation was dynamic and conditions would change over time. Hence amendments. Our constitution is not a faded dried up stagnate piece of parchment as that displayed in the archives. It is dynamic and adaptable to the evolution of our ever more complex society as it is intended to be. It has evolved, will continue to evolve and we are better for it. The slavery issue was put to rest. The underling racism that persists in some minds still needs to be addressed and such is happening which is why this article in the first place.
2
"Far from a proslavery compact of “racist principles,” the Constitution was based on a repudiation of the idea of a nation dedicated to the proposition of property in humans. Without that antislavery outcome in 1787, slavery would not have reached “ultimate extinction” in 1865." The author is here committing the elementary historical/logical error of post hoc, ergo propter hoc: historical succession bleeds into historical causation. There is not the slightest evidence that any of the Founding Fathers foresaw any historical outcomes seven decades in advance, or that this historical outcome was an inevitable result of the Constitution. In fact, the institution of slavery was more firmly embedded in our legal tradition by the mid-19th century than it was when the Constitution was signed, and historical change resulted from people challenging this tradition. It is astonishing that a respected historian would fall into the amateur-night tradition of "the invention of fire resulted in the i-pad" rationales.
1
Oh yeah so slavery was never national law? Wow! I bet there are millions of dead slaves who never got to breathe a whiff of freedom, suffered the lose of everything including agency over their own bodies, in this country who would be surprised by that one.
1
See the CORWIN AMENDMENT (1861) to see just how close slavery (not that it is right) came to being a national institution.
Ohio Congressman Thomas Corwin on March 2, 1861, introduced an Amendment, that stated: No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. On February 28, 1861, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the amendment by a vote of 133 to 65. On March 2, 1861, the U.S. Senate approved it with no alterations, by a vote of 24 to 12. It is interesting to note that the Corwin Amendment was introduced in the Senate by New York Senator William H. Seward. Out-going President James Buchanan endorsed it . In Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said of the Corwin Amendment, I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Ohio Congressman Thomas Corwin on March 2, 1861, introduced an Amendment, that stated: No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. On February 28, 1861, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the amendment by a vote of 133 to 65. On March 2, 1861, the U.S. Senate approved it with no alterations, by a vote of 24 to 12. It is interesting to note that the Corwin Amendment was introduced in the Senate by New York Senator William H. Seward. Out-going President James Buchanan endorsed it . In Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said of the Corwin Amendment, I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
2
History is important but not dispositive. The Founders are dead. Slavery has been outlawed in the US for over 150 years.The meaning of the 14 Amendment is constantly being refined to expand coverage. Yet we remain as a country perfectly willing to divide ourselves by race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, and hairstyle rather than embrace our ability, our need, and our desire to erase those divisions and recognize our common humanity. Like a clock that is correct twice daily, John Roberts was correct when he said that the way to end these sorts of divisions is to end these sorts of divisions.
3
Mr. Wilentz's suggestion that the Constitution did not codify slavery as a national institution, is at best disingenuous. The framers of the Constitution may have had misgivings about slavery, but through their white framing of people of color, accepted and benefited from the spoils of slavery. The 3/5th model apportioned more power to Southern interests, with the aim of perpetuating slavery. The 3/5th model was referred to as the "Federal Ratio" .
Again, Mr. Wilentz argues for the basic virtue of the white framers of the Constitution, who are presented as well meaning folks, in spite of their own sins as slaveholders. This is the classic example of applying the white frame. Mr. Wilentz should simply accept how white elites and their acolytes codified the notion of racial inferiority and white superiority. This apologia for the sins of the founding of the United States is a fantasia to soothe over white guilt and shame in it's consent to slavery.
Again, Mr. Wilentz argues for the basic virtue of the white framers of the Constitution, who are presented as well meaning folks, in spite of their own sins as slaveholders. This is the classic example of applying the white frame. Mr. Wilentz should simply accept how white elites and their acolytes codified the notion of racial inferiority and white superiority. This apologia for the sins of the founding of the United States is a fantasia to soothe over white guilt and shame in it's consent to slavery.
2
Central to the legitimation and organization of North America slavery was the colonial legal system.
The principle foundation of this country’s legal system is the U.S. Constitution.
In 1787, fifty-five white men, made up of slave-owners and others who profited as merchants, shippers, lawyers, or bankers from the economic connection to the slavery system met and created a constitution for what most have viewed as the “first democratic nation.”
As Professor Joe R. Feagin powerfully illuminates in his book, “The White Racial Frame: Centuries of Racial Framing and Counter-Framing,” “these founders clearly viewed the new U.S. from an aggressive white racial perspective. At least seven sections of the new Constitution protected the already old system of racialized enslavement: (1) Article 1, Section 2 counts an enslaved person as only three-fifths of a white person; (2) Article 1, Sections 2 and 9 apportion taxes using the three-fifths formula; (3) Article 1 Sections 8 gives Congress authority to suppress slave insurrections; (4) Article 1, Section 9 prevents abolishing the slave trade before 1808; (5)Article 1, Sections 9 and 10 exempt slave-made goods from export duties; (6) Article 4, Section 2 requires the return of fugitive slaves; and (7) Article 4, Section 4 stipulates that the federal government must help states put down domestic violence, a provision that the framers included in part to deal with slave uprisings.”
This article is pure fiction.
The principle foundation of this country’s legal system is the U.S. Constitution.
In 1787, fifty-five white men, made up of slave-owners and others who profited as merchants, shippers, lawyers, or bankers from the economic connection to the slavery system met and created a constitution for what most have viewed as the “first democratic nation.”
As Professor Joe R. Feagin powerfully illuminates in his book, “The White Racial Frame: Centuries of Racial Framing and Counter-Framing,” “these founders clearly viewed the new U.S. from an aggressive white racial perspective. At least seven sections of the new Constitution protected the already old system of racialized enslavement: (1) Article 1, Section 2 counts an enslaved person as only three-fifths of a white person; (2) Article 1, Sections 2 and 9 apportion taxes using the three-fifths formula; (3) Article 1 Sections 8 gives Congress authority to suppress slave insurrections; (4) Article 1, Section 9 prevents abolishing the slave trade before 1808; (5)Article 1, Sections 9 and 10 exempt slave-made goods from export duties; (6) Article 4, Section 2 requires the return of fugitive slaves; and (7) Article 4, Section 4 stipulates that the federal government must help states put down domestic violence, a provision that the framers included in part to deal with slave uprisings.”
This article is pure fiction.
2
"The United States, Bernie Sanders has charged, 'in many ways was created, and I’m sorry to have to say this, from way back, on racist principles, that’s a fact'.”
The nonsensical quality of Sean Wilentz's argument--fully demonstrated by several of today's comments above--follows from this goal: targeting Bernie Sanders for propagating "the myth [that] threatens to poison the current presidential campaign" (no, I'm not making this up--read the column!). Talk about gratuitous argumentation. One suspects that Wilentz is reassuring himself that Hillary Clinton must not be denied the Democratic nomination next year by some leftist upstart
The nonsensical quality of Sean Wilentz's argument--fully demonstrated by several of today's comments above--follows from this goal: targeting Bernie Sanders for propagating "the myth [that] threatens to poison the current presidential campaign" (no, I'm not making this up--read the column!). Talk about gratuitous argumentation. One suspects that Wilentz is reassuring himself that Hillary Clinton must not be denied the Democratic nomination next year by some leftist upstart
1
Ask any African-American if this writer has any valuable contribution to make on the subject. My repsect for the NYT keeps dropping with this type of space filler.
Slaves could be brought here until 1808. That is their arrival could be considered legal until that year. Fact: slaves were still brought to America after that date.
People could be treated anyway the people who owned them felt like treating them. That little training period of about 400 years persists in today's news reports about people of color being shot dead by police and others across the nation.
When these slaves ran for their lives to retain some level of humanity and decency, they were legally hunted down like dogs across the nation because the Consitution said they could be hunted down like run-a-way dogs.
They were denied the Constitutional right to vote because of the Constitution and local legislation. They were denied an education. They were denied the right to raise their children.
Oh, why go on. The author is certifiable. Arguing or discussing anything based on crude and cruel insanity, delusion and denial is nuts.
Can't wait for his next dribble on why women in America were not really treated as less than men. His final piece on Native Americans giving up their land, lives and customs so European white men could have the advantages of land and resources should be the end of the trilogy.
Can we go forward to something more humorous and truthful as the Republican side show on TV tonight.
Slaves could be brought here until 1808. That is their arrival could be considered legal until that year. Fact: slaves were still brought to America after that date.
People could be treated anyway the people who owned them felt like treating them. That little training period of about 400 years persists in today's news reports about people of color being shot dead by police and others across the nation.
When these slaves ran for their lives to retain some level of humanity and decency, they were legally hunted down like dogs across the nation because the Consitution said they could be hunted down like run-a-way dogs.
They were denied the Constitutional right to vote because of the Constitution and local legislation. They were denied an education. They were denied the right to raise their children.
Oh, why go on. The author is certifiable. Arguing or discussing anything based on crude and cruel insanity, delusion and denial is nuts.
Can't wait for his next dribble on why women in America were not really treated as less than men. His final piece on Native Americans giving up their land, lives and customs so European white men could have the advantages of land and resources should be the end of the trilogy.
Can we go forward to something more humorous and truthful as the Republican side show on TV tonight.
2
While the Civil War, followed by the 13th amendment settled the question legally, it seems likely the Industrial age would have settled the question economically and culturally. The Civil War will never end as it preempted the economic and cultural resolution of the question.
Nice piece.
Nice piece.
1
The Constitution may be too narrow a focus, as while it established the initial form of present U.S. political institutions it did not establish the United States, which of course was established by a colonial rebellion against Great Britain.
Great Britain, after dancing around the issue for decades, had finally in 1772 declared in the Somerset decision that slavery was inconsistent with English common law. While the colonies were empowered by Parliament to legislate for themselves, this was limited in the sense that colonial law could not be "repugnant" to English law. As slavery was legally "odious" in England as of 1772, the threat hung over the heads of the colonies that any fine morning they could wake up to find that Parliament had abolished slavery in British America.
Apparently, the British armed forces liberated something over a quarter of all the slaves in the parts of the American South they temporarily controlled during the War of Independence, and many of those African-Americans gained freedom in England. Thus, success in the rebellion against Great Britain and the founding of the United States were essential to preserving slavery in North America, just as success in the Confederacy's rebellion would have been necessary to preserve slavery past the 1860s.
Great Britain, after dancing around the issue for decades, had finally in 1772 declared in the Somerset decision that slavery was inconsistent with English common law. While the colonies were empowered by Parliament to legislate for themselves, this was limited in the sense that colonial law could not be "repugnant" to English law. As slavery was legally "odious" in England as of 1772, the threat hung over the heads of the colonies that any fine morning they could wake up to find that Parliament had abolished slavery in British America.
Apparently, the British armed forces liberated something over a quarter of all the slaves in the parts of the American South they temporarily controlled during the War of Independence, and many of those African-Americans gained freedom in England. Thus, success in the rebellion against Great Britain and the founding of the United States were essential to preserving slavery in North America, just as success in the Confederacy's rebellion would have been necessary to preserve slavery past the 1860s.
5
The USA as a true national entity didn't really come into being until 1865 with the conclusion of the war. From the revolution until that point states rights and regional differences were more important than the national polity. The issue of slavery smoldered for 80 years and finally had to be resolved and it was with the loss of more than 600,000 lives. In the Gettysburg address Lincoln spoke of a rebirth for our country and in my opinion this is when the USA was truly born.
2
@Abbott Hall: "The USA as a true national entity didn't really come into being until 1865 with the conclusion of the war."
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to establish a national currency and a common system of weights and measures.[1] Those were essential to efficient interstate trade. The US Constitution also gives Congress the power to establish an army and a navy and to declare war.[1] Indeed, the US Navy conducted operations against the Barbary states in 1801 and 1815.[2]
If you read Article 8[1], you will see that the US Constitution establishes *national* power, which is the power given to the United States as a "national entity". Moreover, that national power was asserted from the time the US Constitution was ratified.
[1] Article I, Section 8:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to establish a national currency and a common system of weights and measures.[1] Those were essential to efficient interstate trade. The US Constitution also gives Congress the power to establish an army and a navy and to declare war.[1] Indeed, the US Navy conducted operations against the Barbary states in 1801 and 1815.[2]
If you read Article 8[1], you will see that the US Constitution establishes *national* power, which is the power given to the United States as a "national entity". Moreover, that national power was asserted from the time the US Constitution was ratified.
[1] Article I, Section 8:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates
Steve-What you have written is all true but would the South have seceded if we had indeed been a "national entity"? And if you go back and lack at some of the divisions during the time of the war of 1812 you can see that sectional interests often overrode national interests, especially regarding the tariff question, the national bank issue and internal improvements. Before the war, people identified themselves by their statehood and their region.
"Bernie Sanders has charged, “in many ways was created, and I’m sorry to have to say this, from way back, on racist principles, that’s a fact.”
For Wilentz to say Sanders is wrong because the Constitution does not codify slavery is sleight-of-hand rhetoric. The Constitution - and the Founding Fathers - never resolved the issue of slavery. The Constitution was adopted by Founding Fathers who either allowed slavery to continue or were slaveowners themselves. Less than a century later, the country became embroiled in a bitter fight o get rid of slavery or keep it. Who were American slaves? Those from Africa - no where else.
Sanders is right - the nation founded on the principles of freedom was as committed in 1787 to the enslavement of Africans as it was to freedom. If Wilentz wants to claim racism was not a founding principle of America, he's wrong.
For Wilentz to say Sanders is wrong because the Constitution does not codify slavery is sleight-of-hand rhetoric. The Constitution - and the Founding Fathers - never resolved the issue of slavery. The Constitution was adopted by Founding Fathers who either allowed slavery to continue or were slaveowners themselves. Less than a century later, the country became embroiled in a bitter fight o get rid of slavery or keep it. Who were American slaves? Those from Africa - no where else.
Sanders is right - the nation founded on the principles of freedom was as committed in 1787 to the enslavement of Africans as it was to freedom. If Wilentz wants to claim racism was not a founding principle of America, he's wrong.
9
The anti-slavery founders were between a rock and hard place: outlawing slavery would have meant the Constitution would never have been ratifed and instead of nation we'd have been left with two or more tiny nation-states that would have been easy pickings for the European powers. In short the United States would never have survived.
Instead they chose what they saw as the lesser of two evils and didn't outlaw slavery assuming it would die on it's own in short order.
If were possible it would have been better if the United States had been born slavery free but that simply was not possible
Instead they chose what they saw as the lesser of two evils and didn't outlaw slavery assuming it would die on it's own in short order.
If were possible it would have been better if the United States had been born slavery free but that simply was not possible
@AnneCW: "For Wilentz to say Sanders is wrong because the Constitution does not codify slavery is sleight-of-hand rhetoric."
Mr. Sanders is a candidate for president, and, as such, he is obligated to express himself clearly. Instead, Mr. Sanders vaguely refers to "racist principles", which Mr. Wilentz has interpreted to be a reference to the principles expressed in the US Constitution. Like all politicians, Mr. Sanders prefers political rhetoric to thoughtful analysis, when it suits him.
Mr. Sanders is a candidate for president, and, as such, he is obligated to express himself clearly. Instead, Mr. Sanders vaguely refers to "racist principles", which Mr. Wilentz has interpreted to be a reference to the principles expressed in the US Constitution. Like all politicians, Mr. Sanders prefers political rhetoric to thoughtful analysis, when it suits him.
Surely your acct should include mention of George Mason, joint author of the Bill of Rights, who opposed slavery's inclusion. However, mostly when it's said that the US was founded on slavery, what's intended is economics, not law. And not just the US: the industrial revolution in England & much of its wealth was based on cotton produced by the economic institution of US slavery.
3
The English did not stop at African slaves to run their plantations. They also stole (there is no other word for it) Irish and Scottish people from their homes, the streets, and sometimes from their beds to force them on ships to the British colonies in the West Indies to work alongside African slaves. Since they were white, they were not called slaves. They were indentured. It was a difference that made no difference as the hard work killed many of them before they could be free again.
@Patrick: "... when it's said that the US was founded on slavery, what's intended is economics, not law."
If Mr. Sanders is referring to "economics, not law" when he uses the phrase "racist principles", he should make that clear. Otherwise, he sounds like any other politician throwing red meat to his acolytes.
If Mr. Sanders is referring to "economics, not law" when he uses the phrase "racist principles", he should make that clear. Otherwise, he sounds like any other politician throwing red meat to his acolytes.
So this is meant as a rationale pointing to the fact that this country's Constitution did not contain a written justification of slavery? On the same basis and with the same reasoning one could also point out that it said nothing against slavery. Some of us also look at the Founders, many of whom were slaveholders. Washington and Jefferson alone "owned" hundreds of human beings. They knew full well that slavery was wrong, but continued to benefit economically from owning slaves all their lives. Their plantations, Monticello and Mount Vernon, could not have existed without slave labor. This was wrong by any standard, and yet these two men are still lionized on our currency.
2
If Mr. Wilentz's premise is accepted, one would have to conclude that the 13th amendment was redundant and superfluous. Watch the movie "Lincoln" and decide for yourself.
1
So you're saying a Hollywood movie is dispositive about historical fact? It's screen fiction.
I have seen some argue that the "3/5ths of other persons" clause codifies slavery by treating slaves as less than full persons. But this phrase only related to how many delegates each state had in Congress, and slave states wanted slaves treated as full persons for this purpose while abolitionists wanted slaves not to be counted as persons at all.
But there is a wider point to be made here. The Constitution is silent on many things, including same sex marriage and abortion. Thus they are neither forbidden nor constitutionally protected. It took a war and constitutional amendments to eliminate slavery in the US. Today it seems like we want the Constitution (and judges) to do more than it was intended to do. We need to go back to having the people and their legislatures take back their responsibilities and not abdicate to the courts.
But there is a wider point to be made here. The Constitution is silent on many things, including same sex marriage and abortion. Thus they are neither forbidden nor constitutionally protected. It took a war and constitutional amendments to eliminate slavery in the US. Today it seems like we want the Constitution (and judges) to do more than it was intended to do. We need to go back to having the people and their legislatures take back their responsibilities and not abdicate to the courts.
The relation between slavery and racism was a late development, invented by slaveholders well into the 19th Century. Early in Colonial history there was no such connection; someone of any race could be a slave and someone of any race could be free. It was this later connection that made American slavery so pernicious, in contrast to slavery in the ancient world where the line between slavery, indenture, and being a member of a household functioning as an economic and political unit was fuzzy, and there was no association of slavery with physical appearance.
Racism itself was an invention of the late 18th and 19th Centuries. Until then, while the fact that people from different places had different physical appearance was obvious, there was no ideology connecting it to station in life or moral value. Only with the advent of biological classification came the idea of subdividing humanity into subcategories called races and suggesting that common features of physical appearance had greater significance.
Racism itself was an invention of the late 18th and 19th Centuries. Until then, while the fact that people from different places had different physical appearance was obvious, there was no ideology connecting it to station in life or moral value. Only with the advent of biological classification came the idea of subdividing humanity into subcategories called races and suggesting that common features of physical appearance had greater significance.
1
Racism existed long before the 18th and 19th Centuries. Texts from ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Japanese, and Cinese sources clearly include stereotypically negative comments about the physical and cultural characteristics of other races. Shakespeare often put racist words into the speeches of his characters (I am not saying that Shakespeare was a racist - rather he described people as they were).
Another error is to claim that the connection between slavery and racism did not develop until the 19th Century. Both laws and practice dating back to the 17th Century often specified that only those of African heritage could be slaves (or in some cases Native Americans). It is true that there were indentured servants of European heritage, but indentured servants, while abused, were not abused as much as black slaves, as a matter of law and practice.
Another error is to claim that the connection between slavery and racism did not develop until the 19th Century. Both laws and practice dating back to the 17th Century often specified that only those of African heritage could be slaves (or in some cases Native Americans). It is true that there were indentured servants of European heritage, but indentured servants, while abused, were not abused as much as black slaves, as a matter of law and practice.
Interesting piece, but that reasoned arguments like this will have little impact for so long as Democrats find it politically expedient to portray their opponents as racists.
2
Mr. Wilentz (and his opponents, actually) simplify the issue. The Constitution was a compromise between the northern and southern states, and as such, it punted the question of slavery into the future. Remember, the framer's greatest imperative was to get a deal for a workable national government that could replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation, which had governed the states in the tenuous decade since independence. Slaveholders such as Jefferson and Madison hoped that at some future point, slavery would have faded away, and the issue would be moot. Nobody really knew that cotton would replace tobacco and rice as the new king crop and would spread throughout the south along with the expanding territory of the country, and that slavery would come to be seen by the South not as a "necessary evil," but as a "positive good."
As such, the framers tried to keep the Constitution neutral as to slavery - whatever that might mean.
As such, the framers tried to keep the Constitution neutral as to slavery - whatever that might mean.
2
This article is wrong, right from the start. The question of Constitutionality of Slavery did not cause the civil war. The Supreme Court had upheld slavery already in Dredd Scott. The Civil War was over state's rights, and whether Federal Government was overstepping it's bounds changing the Constitution to outlaw slavery.
Let's not forget, the Confederacy ratified it's own Constitution, which banned the slave trade...
But was Slavery constitutional? Of course not. That's why after the Constitution was ratified and they all patted themselves on the back for recognizing basic human rights, somebody said "Wait, what about the slaves?"
To which the spin was generated: Oh, well they're not human. They don't count.
Sound like anything today?
Let's not forget, the Confederacy ratified it's own Constitution, which banned the slave trade...
But was Slavery constitutional? Of course not. That's why after the Constitution was ratified and they all patted themselves on the back for recognizing basic human rights, somebody said "Wait, what about the slaves?"
To which the spin was generated: Oh, well they're not human. They don't count.
Sound like anything today?
I guess it's true that the Constitution did not *require* slavery, but it's absurd to argue that the Constitution did not recognize--indeed endorse--slavery as an institution that permeated the new nation. The article itself points to two examples in the text that recognize and reward slave-owning states with additional political power and property rights for their citizens. That is why it took an amendment (or multiple amendments) to the Constitution a century later to remove slavery from the nation. Calling this column sophistry is giving it too much credit.
76
Maybe "built on the backs of" would be a better phrase for this writer -- who knows? As in, this country was built on the backs of black slaves. This country was built on the backs of Chinese rail laborers. This country is running on the backs of Latino agricultural workers. And so on.
56
And it was built on the backs of Irish laborers digging canals and laying railroad tracks. Most people do not know that when the Irish came to this country, they were vilified with signs saying things like: "Help wanted. No Irish need apply" and "No dogs and Irish". Bigotry is nothing new here.
So apparently no one else of any ancestry, free or indentured servants, even, contributed to or built America? All the "white folks" and everyone else just sat around and were idle? Really, it's all a bit tiresome.
Wilentz is making a case and there is ground for it. Frederick Douglass made the same case in his famous speech "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" delivered on July 5, 1852. Historian James Oakes shows emergent Republicans making the same case. But historian David Waldstreicher makes a powerful case that building slavery into the Constitution without saying the word, made it a unique special interest in a document that was supposed to recognize none per se. The real points are these, I think. First, the American Revolutionary era saw slavery change from a fact to a problem, which was the beginning of slaver's hemisphere-wide destruction. Second, the Revolution led to contradictory results, because it also set the stage for the Confederacy,willing to wage a titanic struggle to preserve slavery. Third, everywhere else in the hemisphere except Haiti slavery died hard but without major war. Fourth, slavery's American defenders made their case in constitutional terms, until they lost their national-level power. Then they quit. What Wilentz is describing is the most tragic but not the only instance of the peculiarly American habit of turning all public questions, be they moral, economic, cultural, or political into matters that (supposedly) adjudication in constitutional terms can resolve. The Taney Court tried that in Dred Scott, but pretty obviously it didn't work.
24
As Bernie Sanders said, the United States WAS founded on "racist principles." (He did not say slavery.) The Constitution counted blacks as 3/5 of a person. You don't need to go farther than that to document the racist foundation of our nation. Fortunately, our wonderful Constitution contained the mechanism to correct this original sin, as we began to do after the civil war. It is not anti-America to recognize that our origin had flaws. It is simply the truth. And it is good that we are always striving to perfect our union.
2
The three-fifths clause was intended to limit the power of slave-owners whose suffrage was proportional to properties held. Also, without the States, the union did not make sense. So, slavery appears to HAVE BEEN a national institution. Unwittingly, perhaps.
1
I agree that slavery was not "sanctioned" by the constitution, but similarly, was not made illegal by the constitution. Moreover, I disagree that the nation was not "founded on racial slavery" considering that slavery was tolerated by non-slave states in order to have those slave states join in the fight against England and in forming a nation afterwards, the economy of the south depended on slaves, and the agricultural raw materials provided to the north and Europe were produced by slaves. In as much as the slave states did not get all they wanted, neither did the abolitionists in 1787. As for "even" Madison, a slave holder, not wanting human property "enshrined" in the constitution, this suggests to me that he considered slavery as possibly wrong yet participated in it, wanting to keep it as a strong "informal" institution but one that was too embarrassing to "enshrine". Informal institutions/conventions can be as important and often stronger than formal ones, and the nation was founded on these as much as the constitution. Manifest destiny was another racist extra-constitutional force that native Americans suffered under, while today, it is more the idea and force of "American exceptionalism" arrogance that turns the stomachs of other nations.
2
That the North resisted Southern attempts to provide the institution of slavery with elevated property protections is nice, but it hardly suggests that the constitution is an anti-slavery document. The 3/5ths compromise plainly suggests acknowledgment of and at least tacit acquiesce to the institution. Lincoln and Douglass were in the midst of a political and actual struggle of epic proportions and their speeches and writings on the framers have to be viewed in light of that struggle. Of course they were going to say that the constitution was at its core, an anti-slavery document. Their politics demanded that position. But they were not engaging in historical analysis, they were engaging in aggressive politics.
Maybe Mr. Wilentz is too? Emotionally, I agree with him. But i have intellectual reservations about the historical underpinnings and accuracy of his analysis.
Maybe Mr. Wilentz is too? Emotionally, I agree with him. But i have intellectual reservations about the historical underpinnings and accuracy of his analysis.
What seems to be missed in many of these comments is that this country was not a single country but a confederacy of states. The constitution was the second attempt to put together a nation of states rather than a single country. There was much more concern over economic issues than political issues.
Even the Bill of Rights was developed primarily as a limit on federal power not on state power
Even the Bill of Rights was developed primarily as a limit on federal power not on state power
We cannot apply the ethics of today to discussions held in 1787. This is a common fallacy in which we all engage in our supposedly enlightened 21st century.
That being said, I agree that the Founders tried to thread the needle with the 3/5 the compromise (which was wrong) and even more so with the 1808 clause banning importation of slaves. This latter clause did more to worsen slaves lives than just about anything before or after. By banning importation, human slaves suddenly become a limited resource, with a whole economy springing up around their sale and resale. Families were broken up to better maximize economic yield of individual slaves. Education was banned since it made the limited resource less able to be controlled.
The 1808 clause was likely needed to save the Constitution, but the unintended consequences for blacks in America were severe. In many ways all of America owes them a debt, since on the backs of their eventual suffering our Constitutional system was preserved.
That being said, I agree that the Founders tried to thread the needle with the 3/5 the compromise (which was wrong) and even more so with the 1808 clause banning importation of slaves. This latter clause did more to worsen slaves lives than just about anything before or after. By banning importation, human slaves suddenly become a limited resource, with a whole economy springing up around their sale and resale. Families were broken up to better maximize economic yield of individual slaves. Education was banned since it made the limited resource less able to be controlled.
The 1808 clause was likely needed to save the Constitution, but the unintended consequences for blacks in America were severe. In many ways all of America owes them a debt, since on the backs of their eventual suffering our Constitutional system was preserved.
Surely, counting of slaves as worth 3/5ths of a free man is a de facto institutionalizing of slavery all by itself.
1
Whether slavery was part of the Constitution or not is factually immaterial. It certainly was a part of the constitution of the colonies and the United States of America.
3
The Constitution, obviously a compromise, obviously "recognized slavery" several times: I.2.3, I.9.1, IV.2.3. This article is amazingly silly.
8
An interesting article to consider. I had not known that the three-fifths clause was an instrument of slavery in that way. In other words, that the slave owners wanted slaves to count as "whole people" as a way of maximizing power, and the non-slave owners wanted to not count them at all. I see the idea now: if you have 20 slaves who can't vote, but can count towards your representation in Congress, you are essentially duplicating your voice on the backs of the slaves The more slaves there are in your state, the greater your power in the House. So counting them as only three-fifths was actually a victory of sorts for the anti-slavery people; better to not have counted them at all.
Professor Wilentz' very traditional take on the antebellum constitutional status of slavery is akin to Bill Clinton's I-did-not-have-sex-with-that-woman transmutation of common sense that is precisely one of the reasons Bernie Sanders, a political straight-shooter if there ever was one, is garnering so much support. People, not just Americans, but people everywhere, are growing weary of legalistic spin that boggles the mind. A country whose founding document, by Professor Wilentz's own admission, tolerated slavery of black people (and only black people) as a local institution, is absolutely a country that, albeit by compromise, incorporated racism into its fundamental structure. That it took a civil war to extricate it only goes to show how deeply that compromise was rooted.
3
The USA's transition from an agrarian society to an industrial economy was started and established by slavery and cotton. That ended any ideas that the framers had of eliminating slavery and sending the slaves back to Africa, an idea dear to Jefferson and Madison. Slavery and public safety based on the fact that slaves outnumbered whites in the South also spawned the 2nd Amendment, which was also not mentioned by the author in this nuanced piece
Read Richard Beeman's recent book on the Constitutional Convention, "Plain Honest Men." He makes a much more convincing argument that the pro-slavery faction got almost everything it wanted and that no one made a very strong moral argument against them.
"Most of the framers expected slavery to gradually wither away."
This assertion deserves some degree of validation. The author should not expect for the validity to rest in his voice alone. This is especially true when the opposite could easily be reasoned:
1) Slavery drove commerce and created wealth. An economic body in motion will remain in motion...
2) If slavery was indeed destined to decomposition, why on earth was it a central element of the Civil War some scores of years later?
This assertion deserves some degree of validation. The author should not expect for the validity to rest in his voice alone. This is especially true when the opposite could easily be reasoned:
1) Slavery drove commerce and created wealth. An economic body in motion will remain in motion...
2) If slavery was indeed destined to decomposition, why on earth was it a central element of the Civil War some scores of years later?
I'm not sure why it matters except as an academic curiosity. There were slaves, the Civil War did happen, the 13th Amendment was passed and Jim Crow stains our history and still echoes to our shame. What decision will be made differently based on this point?
The author is completely wrong. The union would never have been formed if slavery had not been permitted. The Constitution recognizes slavery in several clauses.
The war did not begin because of the North's desire to eliminate slavery. It started because the South seceded, and the North denied that the South had such a right. Fear of losing the institution of slavery is what drove the South to secede, but saving the Union was the cry to arms in the North, not ending slavery.
The war did not begin because of the North's desire to eliminate slavery. It started because the South seceded, and the North denied that the South had such a right. Fear of losing the institution of slavery is what drove the South to secede, but saving the Union was the cry to arms in the North, not ending slavery.
4
What I don't understand is why there is still so much hatred in the certain areas of the United States for the South. The South was wrong and paid a heavy price for it. What other country has fought such a war to end slavery!? There has been slavery throughout history in almost every culture and country (it still exists today i.e. ISIS). We here in America cannot get over it. Or at least the politicians won't let us. It's time to move on. The rest of the world has.
2
I would have to disagree with you that the South paid a heavy price for the war. While the amount of southern white men dead surely was a heavy load to bear, it was not any more substantial than the loss of northern life, and the politics of the South were nearly untouched by Northern hands 12 years after the war ended. High up members of the Confederacy were reinstated as congressmen and governors of southern states almost immediately; the vice president of the Confederacy itself was named governor of Georgia just eight years after the war ended. Considering the reinstatement of Confederate politicians and generals into powerful political positions within their states, and the subsequent abandonment of the South by the federal government in 1877, I would consider this a very light punishment for such a substantial rebellion against the national government.
The original constitution left the states essential sovereign in their internal affairs. Even today, the states still retain "police powers," aka the general power to enforce laws and regulate society. Therefore, one could commit murder, rape, or robbery and technically not break any *federal* laws in the process. Additionally, the constitution establishes a framework for creating laws, rather than being a body of legislation in itself. The constitution does not address murder, both because that is a legislative, and not a constitutional issue, and it is a state, rather than federal issue.
While the constitution does not mandate slavery, it does, by implication, recognize its existence, and defends the right of slaveholders to recover slaves who cross state lines. In so far as slavery became a federal issue (aka, when runaway slave crossed a state line) the original constitution defended slavery.
While the constitution does not mandate slavery, it does, by implication, recognize its existence, and defends the right of slaveholders to recover slaves who cross state lines. In so far as slavery became a federal issue (aka, when runaway slave crossed a state line) the original constitution defended slavery.
1
Sean Wilentz' column in today's New York Times gives new meaning to the phrase, "a distinction without a difference". He also makes himself the poster boy of academic navel gazing and substituting legalese for argument.
His scholarly nitpicking seems designed to prove to his ivory tower antagonists a esoteric point. Maybe in a scholarly journal, it would be appropriate.But in a general publication like the New York Times, it just further confuses the already confused public...no matter how educated they are. The fact is that the Constitution in effect allowed the trafficking in human beings by looking the other way while Southerners (and Northerners, let's not forget) built their own and the nation's wealth. No matter what the fine print read, the effect was government-sanctioned inhumanity. The Civil War was fought because the north had found an even more lucrative form of human exploitation - "free" white labor.
Right?
Http://GoodWhiteFolks.com
His scholarly nitpicking seems designed to prove to his ivory tower antagonists a esoteric point. Maybe in a scholarly journal, it would be appropriate.But in a general publication like the New York Times, it just further confuses the already confused public...no matter how educated they are. The fact is that the Constitution in effect allowed the trafficking in human beings by looking the other way while Southerners (and Northerners, let's not forget) built their own and the nation's wealth. No matter what the fine print read, the effect was government-sanctioned inhumanity. The Civil War was fought because the north had found an even more lucrative form of human exploitation - "free" white labor.
Right?
Http://GoodWhiteFolks.com
4
The founding of a our nation was not just in writing and signing high-minded federal documents. It occurred in the behavior, of people, of institutions, in the state and local governments, in the construction of a national economy that shaped enormously by free slave labor. Bernie Sanders statement that the US was in part founded on racist principles is banal, or should be. He didn't say it was written into the Constitution. This is a pretty obvious and important distinction the author ignores.
The retrospective idealism displayed by many with respect to slavery in the US is irrational. The US inherited a colony that was part of a colonial empire that trafficked in slavery and established it in North America and every other geography they touched in the world. America was cut from this cloth and it took incredible effort to remove colonial institutions including slavery. The context in the 18th century was that slavery was pervasive, especially in the south, and trying to bring together individual states with their own history and identity into a national charter was a Herculean task. Choices were optimized not perfected just as they are today. The 3/5th's law is clearly one of the choices. So are we any different? There is a terrible lack of self-awareness and humility by people today as they critique people of the 18th century.
Finally the idea that America would not have prospered without slavery is unproven and flies in the face of a belief in innovation and market forces. When a variable is removed then that forces other economic decisions. Plantation owners would have had to pay a wage which would have raised the price of cotton. Or simply the country would have evolved differently. Farms would have been smaller and perhaps the invention of machinery would have taken hold much faster. It would have been different but progress would have been made.
Finally the idea that America would not have prospered without slavery is unproven and flies in the face of a belief in innovation and market forces. When a variable is removed then that forces other economic decisions. Plantation owners would have had to pay a wage which would have raised the price of cotton. Or simply the country would have evolved differently. Farms would have been smaller and perhaps the invention of machinery would have taken hold much faster. It would have been different but progress would have been made.
1
The only lie that can be laid at the feet of the writer of the Declaration of Independence is this: " 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. "
When that was written, not one man that signed it believed than a black person was included in that statement. If they were not to be included in that statement, then slavery was automatically considered as law of the land.
When that was written, not one man that signed it believed than a black person was included in that statement. If they were not to be included in that statement, then slavery was automatically considered as law of the land.
Remember that the southern proto-states were faced with a dilemma when the constitution was being framed. If they did not agree to join with the northern states the risked being returned to British rule as distant colonies subject to all the deprivations they had already experienced while also being bordered on the north by a potentially ascendant new nation and an antagonistic Spanish empire to the south. They knew then that an independent southern slave nation was unsustainable, wisdom that dissipated over the ensuing four score years.
1
While I appreciate all the facts supplied in the article, I believe the argument is nevertheless somewhat spurious. In the end, the codification of the 3/5ths rule and the tacit acknowledgement that slaves were property rather than people does have meaning. It is technically correct to say that slavery was not codified in the constitution, but is there a meaningful difference if it was discussed in detail and the institution was allowed to continue as a "local rule."
In his book, "The Counter-Revolution of 1776," Gerald Horne argues that the real driving force behind the American Revolution was the desire of slave owners to secede from the British Empire before the 13 colonies got caught up in the tide of abolitionism that was sweeping the English-speaking world. That's why so many of the first Presidents were plantation owners. Eighty-five years later, after the Northern states had, in fact, embraced abolitionism, the Southern states seceded again.
I find his argument quite persuasive.
I find his argument quite persuasive.
4
Charles, Tecumseh, Michigan in his NYT pick writes
"... the United States of America came into existence in a land already benighted by slavery by the British, ..."
This is an important point. The New Sweden colony in the Delaware Valley (DE, PA, NJ) was founded in 1638 in DE and Swedish law did not allow slavery (thralls) since 1335. Technically, the colony was considered part of Sweden. That colony thrived, but was taken over by the Dutch, then the English who imposed slavery across the region.
"... the United States of America came into existence in a land already benighted by slavery by the British, ..."
This is an important point. The New Sweden colony in the Delaware Valley (DE, PA, NJ) was founded in 1638 in DE and Swedish law did not allow slavery (thralls) since 1335. Technically, the colony was considered part of Sweden. That colony thrived, but was taken over by the Dutch, then the English who imposed slavery across the region.
1
The Constitution resulted from compromises among people with different customs and ways of life. At that time, Virginia was the largest, most powerful state by a considerable lead. And it was a slave state. So were Maryland and the rest, except NH.
Soon after nine states ratified the Constitution, MA outlawed slavery w/in its borders. CT, NY, NJ, PA, and RI took a while. Slavery offended some living in those states, but when slavery had been around in the open a long time, it didn't rattle them as it did after 1830. By then they had outlawed slavery. Northern states first needed abolition societies to kill any local sense that slavery was not that bad. Before then, admission of new states as free or slave, grabbed everyone's attention.
Also, as Jonah notes the Constitution made allowances for slavery.
Yeah! Tell me again why Sanders was wrong.
Soon after nine states ratified the Constitution, MA outlawed slavery w/in its borders. CT, NY, NJ, PA, and RI took a while. Slavery offended some living in those states, but when slavery had been around in the open a long time, it didn't rattle them as it did after 1830. By then they had outlawed slavery. Northern states first needed abolition societies to kill any local sense that slavery was not that bad. Before then, admission of new states as free or slave, grabbed everyone's attention.
Also, as Jonah notes the Constitution made allowances for slavery.
Yeah! Tell me again why Sanders was wrong.
This is the problem with coverture laws (a type of slavery law that applied to married women) also.
Neither race nor gender are mentioned in the Constitution; only the word "person" is used.
Catholics/the Spanish Empire justified race slavery on the grounds that Africans had invaded the Iberian Penninsula (this was used by Justice Roger Taney to justify the Dred Scott decision) & the British justified it as necessary for competition with the Spanish Empire.
Similarly single women who steered clear of marriage or who could find a husband who would do civil disobedience of coverture could avoid the coverture laws.
Also, north of Mason-Dixon the legal systems, as well as the recognition of the Bill of Rights being based in "person" were very different than in Appalachia and the South.
The M-D line was about the boundary between Pennsylvania, which took the 1689 English Bill of Rights (of Person) very seriously, and Maryland, which was founded as a Catholic colony and had both slavery laws & the laws shrouding & disenfranchising women, even single women, as the Pope required.
Some colonists who went to the South & Appalachia may have been fugitives from enforcement of the 1689 English Bill of Rights (of Person). This would include Jacobite Scots, possibly including Thomas Jefferson's ancestors?
And Puritans in Boston became fugitives once the 1689 BoR was in place because of their "rights of man" ideology (not "rights of person).
Neither race nor gender are mentioned in the Constitution; only the word "person" is used.
Catholics/the Spanish Empire justified race slavery on the grounds that Africans had invaded the Iberian Penninsula (this was used by Justice Roger Taney to justify the Dred Scott decision) & the British justified it as necessary for competition with the Spanish Empire.
Similarly single women who steered clear of marriage or who could find a husband who would do civil disobedience of coverture could avoid the coverture laws.
Also, north of Mason-Dixon the legal systems, as well as the recognition of the Bill of Rights being based in "person" were very different than in Appalachia and the South.
The M-D line was about the boundary between Pennsylvania, which took the 1689 English Bill of Rights (of Person) very seriously, and Maryland, which was founded as a Catholic colony and had both slavery laws & the laws shrouding & disenfranchising women, even single women, as the Pope required.
Some colonists who went to the South & Appalachia may have been fugitives from enforcement of the 1689 English Bill of Rights (of Person). This would include Jacobite Scots, possibly including Thomas Jefferson's ancestors?
And Puritans in Boston became fugitives once the 1689 BoR was in place because of their "rights of man" ideology (not "rights of person).
1
In my mid-1980s high school history class (in a northern state), we were taught that the Civil War was fought primarily over economic issues and that any anti-slavery rhetoric was merely a rallying cry for the Union.
I suppose the main purpose of this (beyond teaching us that history is not simple...a good lesson) was to portray the abolitionist cause as selfish rather than righteous. But at the time, and especially in retrospect, I thought it was rather inaccurate and downright racist to portray the abolition of slavery, in and of itself, as a cause that was not worth fighting over. This interpretation also strangely absolves the Confederacy of some its moral turpitude in the matter.
Thankfully, it looks like today abolition IS being taught as a driving force in the Civil War, at least at my kids' school, while the economic/political considerations are still rightly discussed.
I suppose the main purpose of this (beyond teaching us that history is not simple...a good lesson) was to portray the abolitionist cause as selfish rather than righteous. But at the time, and especially in retrospect, I thought it was rather inaccurate and downright racist to portray the abolition of slavery, in and of itself, as a cause that was not worth fighting over. This interpretation also strangely absolves the Confederacy of some its moral turpitude in the matter.
Thankfully, it looks like today abolition IS being taught as a driving force in the Civil War, at least at my kids' school, while the economic/political considerations are still rightly discussed.
We need to keep in mind that, important as the issue of slavery was in 1787, it was not the overriding issue at the Constitutional Convention. The United States needed desperately a strong, national government, based not on the will of the individual states, but on the will of the elusive "American People." Since a considerable number of these people, many wealthy and influential, owed their wealth to the labor of enslaved humans, the Founding Fathers had to strike a devil's bargain with them: in return for supporting a strong national government, we will concede your right to own slaves. Eventually, a few generations later, this bargain proved to be intolerable. Times and peoples' views change and what was tolerable in 1787 became intolerable in 1860. Slavery existed at the time of the framing of the Constitution and it actually expanded in the South due to the boom in the demand for cotton in the early 1800s. The Constitution did not create, or even condone, slavery. It simply recognized it as a fact of life that had to be accommodated in order to attain the greater goal of national unity.
1
And promises to end importation and transactions in humans were broken. No, sorry. Slave power was in full force and effect in this document and its implementation. And into the mid 20th Century the Cain and Able justifications rested comfortably in the conversation of the South.
It is time that Congress pass a formal apology to the descendents of slaves and an acknowledgment of the wrongs committed through this and related institutions and their continuing effects.
This is a continuation of the conversations and debates that occurred on formation with this "pact made with the Devil." We need to reboot and get it right because it was hijacked at its inception. And again this is a white man's burden - we created this mess and we as political adults get to clean it up.
It is time that Congress pass a formal apology to the descendents of slaves and an acknowledgment of the wrongs committed through this and related institutions and their continuing effects.
This is a continuation of the conversations and debates that occurred on formation with this "pact made with the Devil." We need to reboot and get it right because it was hijacked at its inception. And again this is a white man's burden - we created this mess and we as political adults get to clean it up.
Sophistry. A constitution that accepted and acknowledged slavery - really, the 3/5 rule says it all - surely qualifies as support for the statement that the US was built on slavery. The 3/5 rule is for counting heads for apportioning half of the nation's legislature, and electoral college votes as well -- how we elect the president. Not built on slavery? No, not as if plantation slavery were the nationwide economic model, but surely slavery is among the bricks of the national foundation. Slavery was a poison in the national egg: that a slave-owning aristocrat in a culture of slavery could pen the words that it is self-evident that all men are created equal pretty much set the all-time world record for hypocrisy, something the US works hard at living up to. The 'leader of the free world' has more of its people incarcerated than the worst dictatorships, and its 'defense' department runs around invading and bombing countries all over the world. Men were hung at Nürnberg for making aggressive war but George W. Bush, who killed only hundreds of thousands, not millions, goes about his business unindicted under the protection of our current president -- a constitutional scholar! – who claims the right to kill any American citizen he decides deserves it (and kills their children too), 5th and 14th Amendments notwithstanding. I wonder what Wilentz's next project is, maybe helping with the Pentagon's 13-year project to whitewash and glorify the US war on Vietnam?
1
Wow, the editor didn't notice the author's conflation of "racist principles" with "slavery in the constitution?" That is some serious rhetorical slight-of-hand. Here are a couple quick incontrovertible racist principles on which America was founded:
African-Americans were not given the right to vote when the country was founded, nor were they counted as full persons for the purpose of counting population. Indeed, they were property for the laws of the land at the time of the founding of the country (this is not the same thing as the author's point of slavery in the constitution).
The country was founded on a principle of taking land from the Native Americans living here, which amounted to genocide and continued for decades after the founding of the country.
This entire editorial is predicated on a willful misunderstanding of Sanders's point.
African-Americans were not given the right to vote when the country was founded, nor were they counted as full persons for the purpose of counting population. Indeed, they were property for the laws of the land at the time of the founding of the country (this is not the same thing as the author's point of slavery in the constitution).
The country was founded on a principle of taking land from the Native Americans living here, which amounted to genocide and continued for decades after the founding of the country.
This entire editorial is predicated on a willful misunderstanding of Sanders's point.
3
This is a "smoke and mirrors" article at best. As mentioned earlier by another poster, The 3/5 compromise offered by James Madison (another slaveholder) is was accepted and ratified. Why is the NYTimes allowing such folly to be published?
As for Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, his decision to not acknowledge African Americans as citizens via the Dred Scott case (1857) further explains the longevity of institutional racism. Taney was the product of a slave-holding family, along with 6 other justices that supported his decision in 1857. The cry of "get over it" is ridiculous. Go further up the historical road and we find Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) stating that we can have "separate but equal" public amenities... and that is in law up to the Brown vs Board of Education decision bringing halt to segregated schooling (1954)... which then gave impetus to in the modern Civil Rights Movement, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act (1965; recently dismantled by Chief Justice Roberts), and the Civil Rights Act of 1968... now what do we say in 2015? "Slavery was not part of the Constitution or American law"... OK. The next thing in an Op-Ed will be "Trump is the best man for the Presidency." If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny. To cite another of the golden oldies, Thomas Paine: "these are times that try men's (and women's) souls"...
Come on NYT you can do better.
As for Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, his decision to not acknowledge African Americans as citizens via the Dred Scott case (1857) further explains the longevity of institutional racism. Taney was the product of a slave-holding family, along with 6 other justices that supported his decision in 1857. The cry of "get over it" is ridiculous. Go further up the historical road and we find Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) stating that we can have "separate but equal" public amenities... and that is in law up to the Brown vs Board of Education decision bringing halt to segregated schooling (1954)... which then gave impetus to in the modern Civil Rights Movement, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act (1965; recently dismantled by Chief Justice Roberts), and the Civil Rights Act of 1968... now what do we say in 2015? "Slavery was not part of the Constitution or American law"... OK. The next thing in an Op-Ed will be "Trump is the best man for the Presidency." If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny. To cite another of the golden oldies, Thomas Paine: "these are times that try men's (and women's) souls"...
Come on NYT you can do better.
2
This article take a particularly white view of the question. While the author's argument is technically sound, in reality, the constitution acted in such a way as to allow slavery in the US (South AND North). If you were a Black slave in New York in 1789 instead of a white commentator in The New York Times in 2015, you might have a very different view regarding both whether slavery was a national institution and whether it even mattered if it was. The authors thinking is similar to that which allows us to have a "colorblind" legal system that negatively impacts on-whites to a far greater degree than whites.
There is a major cohort of Americans who look at our current failings and then want to reach back into our history and condemn us as a racist, genocidal nation. They do this mainly to try to concoct a narrative of America that is dark, ugly and all but hopeless, unless, that is, we condemn ourselves and start over. It is abundantly clear to me that they are wrong on many different historical counts.
Details matter. Nuance matters. The idea that some of the slave holding delegates to the convention opposed the formal inclusion of slavery in the Constitution is highly important. It shows that people were aware that slavery was wrong, that they wanted to see it abolished or phased out and that excluding it from enshrinement in the Constitution was a major victory, even if it later led to the Civil War.
What emerges from my own study of American history is the idea that we were flawed at our beginnings, but not flawed in totality. The formal codification of rights and the idealism expressed in the founding documents remain important to this very day. They are the standard against which we judge our past, present and future and they represent a challenge to the government and our people to protect, enforce and enliven those rights and ideals. Were it not for this, the random shootings that have characterized news reports over the last year would be seen as just local outrages, not as insults to our national community and fundamental beliefs and purposes as a nation.
Details matter. Nuance matters. The idea that some of the slave holding delegates to the convention opposed the formal inclusion of slavery in the Constitution is highly important. It shows that people were aware that slavery was wrong, that they wanted to see it abolished or phased out and that excluding it from enshrinement in the Constitution was a major victory, even if it later led to the Civil War.
What emerges from my own study of American history is the idea that we were flawed at our beginnings, but not flawed in totality. The formal codification of rights and the idealism expressed in the founding documents remain important to this very day. They are the standard against which we judge our past, present and future and they represent a challenge to the government and our people to protect, enforce and enliven those rights and ideals. Were it not for this, the random shootings that have characterized news reports over the last year would be seen as just local outrages, not as insults to our national community and fundamental beliefs and purposes as a nation.
1
The narrative is dark and ugly because the history of the United States is dark and ugly.
"tom in bpston", you may be discouraged and downtrodden all you want about the wonderful gifts that were presented to us as a nation at our birth. I am still inspired.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but it the failure of the constitution to explicitly disallow slavery appears to render it a de-facto racist document, if only by conspicuous omission.
The constitution was supposed to 'establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty'.
By intentionally failing to do this in the ensuing original language renders it deeply flawed and inherently racist, given the reality of slavery.
Slavery should have been thrown out with the Declaration of Independence. The fact that it wasn't makes the founders even more sinister & complicit than this article attempts to absolve.
The constitution was supposed to 'establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty'.
By intentionally failing to do this in the ensuing original language renders it deeply flawed and inherently racist, given the reality of slavery.
Slavery should have been thrown out with the Declaration of Independence. The fact that it wasn't makes the founders even more sinister & complicit than this article attempts to absolve.
2
The reason that the Constitution did not prohibit slavery is obvious. Eight of the original 13 states were slave states. Rhode Island abolished slavery in 1774, Vermont in 1777, Pennsylvania in 1780, Massachusetts in 1781, New Hampshire in 1783 and Connecticut in 1784, but slavery was still legal in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia at the time the Constitution was signed in 1787. Rhode Island sent no delegates to the Constitutional Convention, so only four of the 12 states represented were free states. Seventy-three delegates were appointed to the Constitutional Convention, but 18 declined their appointments. Although all but three of those who declined were from slave states, delegates from slave states still outnumbered delegates from free states 36 to 19.
2
This is a truly pointless article.
The Constitution recognized and condoned slavery as a state property right best left to the states. It was a distinction without a difference. Otherwise there would have been no Civil War.
Lincoln and Douglas were attempting finesse the issue in order to avoid a constitutional crisis and a civil war.
They failed.
The Constitution recognized and condoned slavery as a state property right best left to the states. It was a distinction without a difference. Otherwise there would have been no Civil War.
Lincoln and Douglas were attempting finesse the issue in order to avoid a constitutional crisis and a civil war.
They failed.
4
Some commenters seem so invested in their dislike of this country that they take Calhoun's side instead of Lincoln's.
4
The very fact that a slave, held in service in Massachusetts, at the time after the Revolution who, mostly out of sense of personal frustration, left her masters and spoke with a lawyer about her condition. This man , upon considering the laws of the state and commonwealth of Massachusetts(a much different and far larger area than now, discovered that there existed no laws making the holding of slaves in Massachusetts legal. As a result, taking her case, she successfully sued to obtain her liberty permanently, from the family she had once lived among as a slave.
This was appealed but appeal found for the defendent(in the late 18th century) and so, it was found that not only was slavery iollegal in Massachusetts after the Revolution, that it had never been legal there at all. Anyone holding slaves was out of luck. Thoise who had simply made the false assumption that because a social evil (like smoking or spitting on the street) was commonplace and so many did it, that it was also legal. Thnis case showed that it was not true in MAsssachusetts, at least. It also shows that the large Eastern states paid very little attention to the new and mostly powerless and inferior courts and capitol of the new federal government. Members of the supreme courts of NY and of Massachusetts were considered far more powerful and of greater status than the new 3 man supreme court being run down in the pestiferous swamps of Washington city.
This was appealed but appeal found for the defendent(in the late 18th century) and so, it was found that not only was slavery iollegal in Massachusetts after the Revolution, that it had never been legal there at all. Anyone holding slaves was out of luck. Thoise who had simply made the false assumption that because a social evil (like smoking or spitting on the street) was commonplace and so many did it, that it was also legal. Thnis case showed that it was not true in MAsssachusetts, at least. It also shows that the large Eastern states paid very little attention to the new and mostly powerless and inferior courts and capitol of the new federal government. Members of the supreme courts of NY and of Massachusetts were considered far more powerful and of greater status than the new 3 man supreme court being run down in the pestiferous swamps of Washington city.
@mabraun: "... a slave ... left her masters and spoke with a lawyer ..."
Does anyone in your anecdote have a name?
Does anyone in your anecdote have a name?
Good article and I guess it needs saying even though if slavery had been a national institution built into the Constitution and protected by the Constitution, I don't see how northern states could have passed laws for gradual emancipation within their borders. Any such law would violate a slave owner's property right, after all, if the Constitution had protected slavery as a national institution. Much else would have been different, too. I doubt, for instance, that the Missouri Compromise of the 1820s would have passed Constitutional muster. It would have fallen like the state emancipation statutes. As for the infamous 3/5s clause of the Constitution, that was another compromise, and under the conditions of the day in the 1780s, it was needed to get the Constitution written and passed. Like most compromises, it comes with a bitter aftertaste. But that's history, for you, and how things must be if anything is to be done in a fallen world run by beings as imperfect as humans.
The authors of the Constitution, from both the North and the South, were accomplished statesmen as well as politicians. As a group they recognized the existence of slavery to be an obstacle to strengthening the Union, and while many of them, including some Southerners, disliked or were uncomfortable with it, in the end they finessed the issue in various ways that enabled them to agree on the Constitution.
The great majority, at least, of those who have commented clearly are not statesmen or politicians and appear unfamiliar with negotiations among autonomous and relatively equal parties. In such cases it is all but certain that that none of them will be fully satisfied; all must go away with an agreement that is not fully satisfactory to them, or with no agreement at all.
The Constitution contained many compromises, including the Article I, Section II, paragraph 3 (the 3/5 rule), Article I, Section IX, paragraph 1 (allowing importation of slaves until at least 1808), and Article IV, Section II, paragraph 3 (providing for return of fugitive slaves). Without them, arguably, there would have been no Union, with whatever consequences resulted from that. While it is interesting to speculate, as one comment suggested, about what might have happened if the Northern and Southern states went their separate ways, it is doubtful that slavery in the South would have been ended before 1865 and unclear that black slaves or their descendants would have been better off as a result.
The great majority, at least, of those who have commented clearly are not statesmen or politicians and appear unfamiliar with negotiations among autonomous and relatively equal parties. In such cases it is all but certain that that none of them will be fully satisfied; all must go away with an agreement that is not fully satisfactory to them, or with no agreement at all.
The Constitution contained many compromises, including the Article I, Section II, paragraph 3 (the 3/5 rule), Article I, Section IX, paragraph 1 (allowing importation of slaves until at least 1808), and Article IV, Section II, paragraph 3 (providing for return of fugitive slaves). Without them, arguably, there would have been no Union, with whatever consequences resulted from that. While it is interesting to speculate, as one comment suggested, about what might have happened if the Northern and Southern states went their separate ways, it is doubtful that slavery in the South would have been ended before 1865 and unclear that black slaves or their descendants would have been better off as a result.
Let's remember that the Constitution was written by rich, white, males many of whom, including Washington and Jefferson, owned slaves themselves. Professor Wilenz's legalistic approach doesn't mean that those who argue that the foundations of the US included slavery are wrong.
5
You will find a rebuttal to your argument in The Quartet, Joseph J. Ellis. Of the four Washington and Madison owned salves, and did there close close associates Jefferson and Mason. I'm just over half way through the book and the convention hasn't started. The four, and many others, very strongly felt the Confederation was inherently unstable and recognized the moral problem with slavery. It is wrong to say the leaders of the Constitutional Convention were pro-slavery.
It is possible to take the position that the creation of a nation based on such principles as ours and a form of government and political culture that, by its example, has transformed the warring states of Europe and Asia, is of no significance to mankind.
Given our current level of freedom, prosperity and such enlightenment as we can manage, yes, we can imagine the impossible --to go back in time and do better than the founder to whom we owe everything we have.
But that merely makes us their heirs, who stain our manifold gifts with the sin of ingratitude.
It is more to be wondered that men who lived in a time when slavery was everywhere, who themselves owned slaves, who did not have our easy access to knowledge and prosperity, who were not the beneficiaries of a war caused by slavery that led to untold slaughter, could still imagine a nation based on the principle that all men are created equal.
That the founders chose to prioritize creating this nation and basing it on principles we take for granted today was, in the context of its time, a decision that brought great blessings upon their posterity.
May people generations hence say the same about us.
Given our current level of freedom, prosperity and such enlightenment as we can manage, yes, we can imagine the impossible --to go back in time and do better than the founder to whom we owe everything we have.
But that merely makes us their heirs, who stain our manifold gifts with the sin of ingratitude.
It is more to be wondered that men who lived in a time when slavery was everywhere, who themselves owned slaves, who did not have our easy access to knowledge and prosperity, who were not the beneficiaries of a war caused by slavery that led to untold slaughter, could still imagine a nation based on the principle that all men are created equal.
That the founders chose to prioritize creating this nation and basing it on principles we take for granted today was, in the context of its time, a decision that brought great blessings upon their posterity.
May people generations hence say the same about us.
6
A thoughtful piece about history's murkiness and complexity. I wish only that Prof. Wilentz had omitted the gratuitous swipe at Sen. Bernie Sanders.
7
Interesting article about history. I am wondering when we are going to get down to brass tax about demilitarizing police departments. Mandatory, comprehensive, seriously non-violent intervention education programs for police administration, officers and trainees. Reducing the number of private prisons, freeing money for follow-up for those who are released from prisons, and their families. Proposals of Federally sponsored childcare for working parents, single or otherwise. Job training in the trades, admirable work, good salaries, for those who wish to stand on a rung of the employment ladder-what exists of it. Remedial classes for those who wish to attend college in communities that are so poor that they cant attract a local supermarket, much less a University. Living wages and forty-hour per week jobs. Seed money for local start-up businesses that reflect the populations in communities they would serve, so that they can gentrify the communities they have lived in for generations to their own tastes, rather than becoming prey to high-end, highly paid corporate techie takeover. We can talk about history all day long, which we do because it is very important, but when are we going to start making some history right here, right now, that will strengthen this country in times of growing fear, anger, uncertainty, violence, born of increasing dire need in the present ?
1
This is creative revisionism at its worst.
3
I agree that the Constitution did not endorse slavery as a national institution; Lincoln always argued that the Constitution did not endorse slavery, but that it also forbade him as President to interfere with slavery in states where it was allowed. However, the Dred Scott decision did make slavery a de facto national institution, because the Court ruled that a slave owner could take his slaves with him into free states for any amount of time he wanted without making them free.
Even if you accept the premise of this article that slavery was not a national institution, the argument that racism is and always has been endemic in this country is still a valid one. Similarly, the substantial contribution of slave labor to the national economy, especially in the 1800s, cannot be denied. The entire white race benefited from racist policies that kept black competition out of many job markets and that kept the wages of black workers in those jobs they did hold artificailly low
Even if you accept the premise of this article that slavery was not a national institution, the argument that racism is and always has been endemic in this country is still a valid one. Similarly, the substantial contribution of slave labor to the national economy, especially in the 1800s, cannot be denied. The entire white race benefited from racist policies that kept black competition out of many job markets and that kept the wages of black workers in those jobs they did hold artificailly low
5
Slavery kept all wages low, for free blacks and for whites. Makes wonder how the lower class whites of the south could have agreed to fight for the Confederacy.
I question your statement that "The entire white race benefited from racist policies...." Abe Lincoln's father moved north because he could not get a fair shake in the slave south.
Anyone interested in this topic should read the essay "The Unconstitutionality of Slavery" by the abolitionist Lysander Spooner. It supports the central premise of this article and stands in opposition to the views of Calhoun and William Lloyd Garrison. The arguments in it were good enough to change Frederick Douglass' opinions on the matter from anti-Constitution to pro-Constitution and he used arguments from it in his own speeches. Even the pro-slavery Mississippi Senator Senator Albert Gallatin Brown acknowledged the rigor of it's arguments and the validity of some of its claims. Copies of the essay are freely available on the web.
5
Is there a way to request a "new rule" at the NYTimes?
I would like the authors of op-eds to have to write 3 sentences on what the true purpose of their writing is, and in turn have the NYTimes write 3 sentences on why they published the essay.
So for instance, in the case of Sean Wilentz, he might write, "The purpose of my missive is to correct Bernie Sanders and his followers on an assumption being made about American history. By so doing this, I intend to tamper down the rhetoric of Sanders, and offer my full support for more well-behaved and moderate liberal candidates, like Hillary Clinton. I also would like to suggest that I, and other academics, should be consulted before any statements are being made, so not to be bothered with making these corrections.
I have no idea what the justification would be for the NYTimes to publish this essay. IF the 3/5's clause is not a racist principle, not really sure that there ever was one.
I hope my day does not get any weirder than reading Wilentz's obtuse objection to a single statement by Bernie Sanders.
Please consider the above "new rule."
I would like the authors of op-eds to have to write 3 sentences on what the true purpose of their writing is, and in turn have the NYTimes write 3 sentences on why they published the essay.
So for instance, in the case of Sean Wilentz, he might write, "The purpose of my missive is to correct Bernie Sanders and his followers on an assumption being made about American history. By so doing this, I intend to tamper down the rhetoric of Sanders, and offer my full support for more well-behaved and moderate liberal candidates, like Hillary Clinton. I also would like to suggest that I, and other academics, should be consulted before any statements are being made, so not to be bothered with making these corrections.
I have no idea what the justification would be for the NYTimes to publish this essay. IF the 3/5's clause is not a racist principle, not really sure that there ever was one.
I hope my day does not get any weirder than reading Wilentz's obtuse objection to a single statement by Bernie Sanders.
Please consider the above "new rule."
12
Most laypersons today forget that until the 20th century, almost all domestic policies (including slavery) were the purview of the state governments. Before 14th Am incorporation, the modern interpretations of the ICC, and the rise of the administrative state there were very few national laws. Everything from who could vote and at what age to food and drug laws to marriage to civil rights (against non-Federal actors) to slavery—all local.
2
I disagree. This is a re-write of history. The best you can say is that the convention was split and the constitution was a compromise. Douglass initially argued that it was a pro-slavery document and only changed his mind, it appears, because of in fighting amongst diverse abolitionist groups. His change enraged Garrison, who had championed him and many black abolitionists opposed him after it. In my view, his late arguments (too long for here) do not hold water. The 3/4 compromise can not be swung to argue that southerners at the convention cared about the slaves. They wanted slaves to be counted as 1 person so that they could have an electoral advantage. Even 3/4 gave it to them and they had 10 of the first 12 presidents despite being out-populated. It seems to me preposterous to argue that a constitution that even allowed overseas slave trading for almost 20 years and provided any fugitive slave provision was other than pro-slavery. Again, all it shows was compromise and that some people, more in the north, looked to an eventual end of the institution. It was the very same split in opinion and interests that led to the Civil War.
2
In politics, as in life generally, there are errors of omission as well as commission. A standard Christian confession of sin asks for forgiveness
for "what we have done, and what we have left undone."
The question of slavery was a matter left "undone" by our Constitution no matter what apologists like Mr. Wilentz have to say about it.
A foreseeable sequelae of this omission was the development of the agrarian economic model of the South, literally built upon slave labor, which resulted in black folks being the vast majority of people living there in the 1850's according to the U.S. Census.
It took the Civil War for our nation to enact the 14th Amendment in 1868 which formally outlawed de jure racial discrimination by a state.
Since then politicians and right wing jurists nationwide have sought ways around the 14th Amendment, and the 15th, which gave former slaves the right to vote. From Jim Crow, to literacy tests, to Plessy, to most recently Shelby County and Republicans in the Congress being "agin" anything our President might propose simply because he's black, the beat goes on.
for "what we have done, and what we have left undone."
The question of slavery was a matter left "undone" by our Constitution no matter what apologists like Mr. Wilentz have to say about it.
A foreseeable sequelae of this omission was the development of the agrarian economic model of the South, literally built upon slave labor, which resulted in black folks being the vast majority of people living there in the 1850's according to the U.S. Census.
It took the Civil War for our nation to enact the 14th Amendment in 1868 which formally outlawed de jure racial discrimination by a state.
Since then politicians and right wing jurists nationwide have sought ways around the 14th Amendment, and the 15th, which gave former slaves the right to vote. From Jim Crow, to literacy tests, to Plessy, to most recently Shelby County and Republicans in the Congress being "agin" anything our President might propose simply because he's black, the beat goes on.
5
Mr. Wilentz consistently and incorrectly conflates "slavery" with "racism." To say that the nation "was created...from way back, on racist principles" (Bernie Sanders) is not to argue that "the United States was founded on racial slavery," which Mr. Wilentz rightly denies. It's hard to see how any reasonable student of American history could doubt the former. As Mr. Wilentz himself admits, "most white Americans presumed African inferiority" in 1787. That assumption, along with the assumption of female inferiority, is implicit in the Constitution. If it were not so, full equality of citizenship for African Americans and women would not have required more than two centuries of ongoing struggle.
5
Wow! Good for us! We didn't put slavery into the Constitution. I guess it didn't exist. And for a moment there, I thought this country's wealth was built on the back of slaves. Stupid me.
2
Slavery is morally wrong, and no, it is not articulated (in any way, shape or form) in the Constitution, except where it is abolished. There are a lot of things that are not articulated in the Constitution that are being declared as "rights" by the courts. How are these "rights" any different than the the perceived "right" of slave ownership?
2
Very good piece. Lincoln firmly believed that slavery could and should be excluded from the territories, contrary to the ruling in Dred Scott. The southern states knew that if they could not expand slavery, eventually a constitutional majority and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate would lead to the 'demise' of slavery even where it existed in 1860, though Lincoln's platform said nothing about such an event. The states that tried to pull out of the Union were led by men who would not accept the result of the election, the prospect of a ban on expansion. Their rump constitution did in fact enshrined white supremacy and slavery as the natural order of things. Prof Wilentz rightly points out that the US Constitution did no such thing, but Lincoln knew that the Emancipation Proclamation was but a wartime measure and that the 13th Amendment was necessary to nationalize freedom. That is was the fine movie was about: Lincoln w/ D.D. Lewis.
2
No, the constitution did not establish slavery as a national institution. The American economy did -- an economy that even today relies on a white southern electoral franchise to make a concerted attack on the constitutional rights of minorities to vote, in hope of keeping wages low, worker protections scant, and the plutocracy richer and more influential than all the rest of us combined.
2
This looks like hairsplitting to me. Clearly the Constitution sanctioned the practice of slavery under state law. Thus it was institutionalized.
3
The details explained here are important, but while our country and Constitution were not founded on racist principles, considering any race to be worth three-fifths of another can't be seen as anything but racist. The article expands understanding but seems to skirt this obvious fact.
3
It is a testament to the withering away of socialist extremism that much of the little left to them (no pun intended) to point to about their own exceptional cause is to try and visit the sins of the father upon the innocent son, even as their "fellow travelers" in extremism, for example ISIS, renew their own faith in slavery.
1
Here's the shocking part.
Professor Wilentz's op-ed would have gotten a D in my college honors history class. And deservedly so.
It can be argued that Constitutionally short of Congress, the executive branch and the federal judiciary there were no national institutions.
The duty to establish (i.e. regulate) acts of commerce, property ownership and day to day life in America fell to Congress to enact laws to regulate, or deliberately not enact laws to protect.
Slavery was not only a national institution, but a regulated, legal one until the 13th Amendment. The fact that the 13th Amendment was required to end slavery undercuts every word Wilentz wrote here!
And he was one of my go-to historians when I was in college.
How the mighty have fallen.
Professor Wilentz's op-ed would have gotten a D in my college honors history class. And deservedly so.
It can be argued that Constitutionally short of Congress, the executive branch and the federal judiciary there were no national institutions.
The duty to establish (i.e. regulate) acts of commerce, property ownership and day to day life in America fell to Congress to enact laws to regulate, or deliberately not enact laws to protect.
Slavery was not only a national institution, but a regulated, legal one until the 13th Amendment. The fact that the 13th Amendment was required to end slavery undercuts every word Wilentz wrote here!
And he was one of my go-to historians when I was in college.
How the mighty have fallen.
4
Sean Wilentz is Hillary Clinton's historian, * and is obviously using this ridiculous essay to attack Bernie sanders. The idea that as founded or Constituted the United States was not racially prejudiced to the extent of allowing slavery is as ridiculous as offensive. At least we can be honest about history. **
* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/19/hillarys-historian-sean-wilentz...
** http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/books/review/the-half-has-never-been-t...
October 4, 2014
A Brutal Process
By ERIC FONER
THE HALF HAS NEVER BEEN TOLD
Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism
By Edward E. Baptist
* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/19/hillarys-historian-sean-wilentz...
** http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/books/review/the-half-has-never-been-t...
October 4, 2014
A Brutal Process
By ERIC FONER
THE HALF HAS NEVER BEEN TOLD
Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism
By Edward E. Baptist
8
And yet, the Constitution does enshrine 'buying congressmen', in the sense of both the 3/5ths compromise and the "person held to service or labour" clause that applied to slaves, apprentices, and indentured servants common in the period. (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3) By purchasing slaves counted as 3/5ths of a voter, or purchasing the services of a servant or apprentice for set terms (counted as a full person), states increased their census count in determining congressional representation.
Since these slaves and workers could not vote anywhere during their service, they proportionally increased the votes of the richer people who owned them. In counties where slaves and servants were a a large % of people, this meant that elections favored the rich by preventing most workers from voting. Many states went further by requiring voters to be property owners.
Interestingly, today we have a situation where many of our workers are foreign green card'ers or undocumented and thus cannot vote. Many of them risk deportation if they complain about their job or quit. Given that most of them are residents who use our infrastructure and pay taxes, it deprives them of civil representation to deny them the right to vote. This suggests allowing them 'resident voting' without the granting of citizenship. They would lose that right if they leave the country. Otherwise substantial parts of today's workforce are unrepresented.
Since these slaves and workers could not vote anywhere during their service, they proportionally increased the votes of the richer people who owned them. In counties where slaves and servants were a a large % of people, this meant that elections favored the rich by preventing most workers from voting. Many states went further by requiring voters to be property owners.
Interestingly, today we have a situation where many of our workers are foreign green card'ers or undocumented and thus cannot vote. Many of them risk deportation if they complain about their job or quit. Given that most of them are residents who use our infrastructure and pay taxes, it deprives them of civil representation to deny them the right to vote. This suggests allowing them 'resident voting' without the granting of citizenship. They would lose that right if they leave the country. Otherwise substantial parts of today's workforce are unrepresented.
2
One interesting fact rarely mentioned by historians is that it would have been cheaper for Congress to simply buy all the slaves in 1860 and set them free than pay for the war. This is easy to calculate, the number of slaves their average price and the dollar cost of the war. Just the direct cost to the North was greater than the value of all the slaves. It does not consider the direct cost to the South, the lost wages and taxes from killed and maimed soldiers, destruction of property, long term costs for pensions and disability (greater than the direct war costs) or the human cost. War was and is bad economically, except for a few war profiteers.
This is an outrageously bad idea. Is Sean Wilentz aware of the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision? Nothing less than the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 affirmed that African American can be enslaved but that even freed slaves were not U.S. citizens. If this does not signify U.S. government's official sanctioning of slavery and racism, I don't know what does. Does Wilentz need a lecture on the role of U.S. Supreme Court as the definitive arbiter of constitutional questions? Wilentz will have us believe that the original founders resisted slavery and that U.S. federal government tried to weaken it until the Civil War finally ended it. The realities of both U.S. government and the real lives of African Americans show that this is utter nonsense.
3
The Dread Scott decision was written long aft the constitution.
Using flowery language rather than the word "slave" certainly doesn't mean slavery wasn't enshrined in the Constitution.
Bottom line, the slave trade and thus, slavery, was Constitutionally regulated, while essentially all other commerce was left to the states and to Congress. That many delegates disagreed with slavery doesn't change that simple fact.
Bottom line, the slave trade and thus, slavery, was Constitutionally regulated, while essentially all other commerce was left to the states and to Congress. That many delegates disagreed with slavery doesn't change that simple fact.
3
I think the NY Times would be doing the public a much more truthful service if they would print a discussion/debate between Sean Wilentz and Edwin Baptiste, author of "The Half has Never Been Told." I think Mr. Wilentz would decline...his dishonesty is of the type that only survives if it is put forward without contestation. So, to be blunt, I'll just say it: Mr Wilentz is a liar. The point is not, nor has it ever been, whether the literal words saying "slavery is a national institution" appeared in the US Constitution. I would also refer people to "Dark Bargain: Slavery, Profits, and the Struggle for the Constitution," by Lawrence Goldstone. It is about as well-documented a book as can be written about the Constitutional Convention, as there were no actual minutes of that Convention, which fact Goldstone addresses in Dark Bargain.
5
Correction to recent comment of mine.. The Constitutional compromise on representation was so that the South would NOT be under-reresented vs. the North in the House of Representatives. Otherwise, is only free people were counted, the North with the larger population, even in 1787, would have outvoted the South in the House.
"In the convention’s waning days, proslavery delegates won a clause for the return of runaway slaves from free states. Yet the clause was a measure of slavery’s defensiveness, prompted by then landmark Northern gradual emancipation laws, and was so passively worded that enforcement was left to nobody, certainly not the federal government."
This is manipulative and dishonest. Whatever provisions were passed in the convention's "waning days" are equivalent in legal weight to whatever provisions were passed in the convention's rosy dawn, its robust noon, or its muggy late afternoon. No asterisk was attached to the runaway slave clause indicating that it differed in legal weight from any other clause.
And what testimony can the author cite that this clause was introduced because slavery (a personification) was defensive? Did the proponents offer this reason ("seeing the slavery is defensive...") as a ground for the introduction of this clause? Isn't it more plausible to assume that the incorporation of a clause to which many Northerners objected was rather a testimony to the South's political strength than a measure of its weakness?
This is manipulative and dishonest. Whatever provisions were passed in the convention's "waning days" are equivalent in legal weight to whatever provisions were passed in the convention's rosy dawn, its robust noon, or its muggy late afternoon. No asterisk was attached to the runaway slave clause indicating that it differed in legal weight from any other clause.
And what testimony can the author cite that this clause was introduced because slavery (a personification) was defensive? Did the proponents offer this reason ("seeing the slavery is defensive...") as a ground for the introduction of this clause? Isn't it more plausible to assume that the incorporation of a clause to which many Northerners objected was rather a testimony to the South's political strength than a measure of its weakness?
2
Slavery was the elephant in the room in Philadelphia make no mistake. It was an embarrassment to some and embraced by the rest. To now claim it didn't shape the Constitution that emerged is flat wrong, and because all the delegates had to tip toe around it it ruled the debate and outcome.
One doesn't have to expressly acknowledge the Sun to comment on the daylight.
One doesn't have to expressly acknowledge the Sun to comment on the daylight.
5
Where did this guy go to school? If it is "a myth" that the Constitution 'established' slavery as part of the fabric of the new nation, then the 13th amendment is superfluous. Amendments, not incidentally, "amend" -- add to or subtract from the meaning of - the original Constitution. The most popular amendments being the so-called "Bill of Rights -- i.e., the first 10 amendments -- which didn't appear in the original version.
Wilentz reminds one of a grad student looking for a thesis in a dictionary. He might start by looking up the word "amend."
Wilentz reminds one of a grad student looking for a thesis in a dictionary. He might start by looking up the word "amend."
4
Three things are clear:
(1) Our "perfect union" was not possible had the framers not recognized the right of states to embrace the concept of property in men.
(2) Rights not specifically mentioned in the rights are reserved for the States to exercise. Constitution did not give anyone the right to hold slaves but it did not forbid such right either. So, there was implicit agreement with the principle of property in men.
(3) Bernie is getting desperate and wants to 'cotton on' to black constituency by bringing to light the unsavory aspect of our past. That is not good. We need blacks to feel part of this country, not continue to hold rancor about how they ancestors were treated by the framers and by southern states.:
(1) Our "perfect union" was not possible had the framers not recognized the right of states to embrace the concept of property in men.
(2) Rights not specifically mentioned in the rights are reserved for the States to exercise. Constitution did not give anyone the right to hold slaves but it did not forbid such right either. So, there was implicit agreement with the principle of property in men.
(3) Bernie is getting desperate and wants to 'cotton on' to black constituency by bringing to light the unsavory aspect of our past. That is not good. We need blacks to feel part of this country, not continue to hold rancor about how they ancestors were treated by the framers and by southern states.:
2
The U.S. Constitution as written in 1787 includes clauses referring to slavery. The first says the international slave trade can end after 1808 if Congress so wishes, but not before then. Secondly, there is a fugitive slave clause in the document. Third, representation in Congress based on population was a compromise with slaves included in the count so that the South was under-represented in the House vs. the North. So Calhoun was right. So were the most radical abolitionists who likewise insisted it was a slave document (Frederick Douglass was not a radical abolitionist.) And finally, if it were not a slave document, then the 13th Amendment to it, ending slavery would not have been necessary. Seems to me Mr. Wilentz is historically uninformed?
3
"And now the myth threatens to poison the current presidential campaign. The United States, Bernie Sanders has charged, 'in many ways was created, and I’m sorry to have to say this, from way back, on racist principles, that’s a fact.'”
Of course, this statement is only the author's set-up, or use of the straw-man fallacy, to be dismissed as "myth" in the author's subsequent argument. But it is not accurate or fair to use and misrepresent Bernie Sanders' statement in such a way.
Sanders wasn't specifically referring to the Constitution, and it would be accurate to say that structurally the U.S. was set up and functioned in practice on the basis of racism "in many ways." In fact, it still does. Why are Republicans so busy these days trying to do away with voting rights laws?
I simply find it annoying when writers or researchers employ this as a strategy. It is not fair to misrepresent or exaggerate another person's statement, primarily to advance the author's argument or research findings. I have reviewed a lot of research articles, and resent this technique that some authors/researchers use.
Of course, this statement is only the author's set-up, or use of the straw-man fallacy, to be dismissed as "myth" in the author's subsequent argument. But it is not accurate or fair to use and misrepresent Bernie Sanders' statement in such a way.
Sanders wasn't specifically referring to the Constitution, and it would be accurate to say that structurally the U.S. was set up and functioned in practice on the basis of racism "in many ways." In fact, it still does. Why are Republicans so busy these days trying to do away with voting rights laws?
I simply find it annoying when writers or researchers employ this as a strategy. It is not fair to misrepresent or exaggerate another person's statement, primarily to advance the author's argument or research findings. I have reviewed a lot of research articles, and resent this technique that some authors/researchers use.
5
The discussion has degenerated to the equivalent of asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. However the argument is framed, the Civil War and the 13th, 14th, & 15th Amendments put an end to the discussion. The argument is silly because as with all history those who wish to support a particular view will pick & choose their "facts." Conflicting paradigms are put forth. Who cares? It was evil and is evil. The U.S. and its allies need to stamp out its modern equivalent. The long journey to its abolition has not yet concluded. Only the focus has changed, inc. recognizing that some clever legerdemain is used to hide its reality.
Full of contradictory ideas. For example: "The delegates could never have created a federal union if they had given power to the national government to meddle in the property laws of the slave states." Does Wilentz know that slaves were considered property in 1787? Of course, because slaves were property thenl, the constitution--the union between states--was based on the idea of upholding slavery in most of the states and allowing it.
Another ridiculous point is that because the North beat the South militarily, the argument that slavery was not part of the founding is correct. There are so many problems with this its hard to know where to start, but worth noting that Lincoln's inaugural address includes his desire to preserve slavery in the south.
Like Carlos states: I wasn't even 3/5 convinced by this specious argument.
Another ridiculous point is that because the North beat the South militarily, the argument that slavery was not part of the founding is correct. There are so many problems with this its hard to know where to start, but worth noting that Lincoln's inaugural address includes his desire to preserve slavery in the south.
Like Carlos states: I wasn't even 3/5 convinced by this specious argument.
This Op-ed is demonstrably wrong. The way the constitution dealt with slavery was to push the most contentious "can" facing the new country down the road. If there were an obvious anti-slavery bend to the constitution the 13th amendment wouldn't have been necessary.
Lincoln did not vow to end slavery in the South at the time of his election because it was almost certainly unconstitutional to do so, because of the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Instead he sought to end slavery in the territories where he was on firmer legal footing.
The constitution makes three more or less direct acknowledgments of the legality of slavery:
"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..." (can't stop the foreign slave trade for 20 years)
"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." (Free states must return slaves to their owners)
Finally the famous 3/5th compromise whose text is too long to include. (Slaves count for 3/5th of a person)
Case closed.
Lincoln did not vow to end slavery in the South at the time of his election because it was almost certainly unconstitutional to do so, because of the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Instead he sought to end slavery in the territories where he was on firmer legal footing.
The constitution makes three more or less direct acknowledgments of the legality of slavery:
"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..." (can't stop the foreign slave trade for 20 years)
"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." (Free states must return slaves to their owners)
Finally the famous 3/5th compromise whose text is too long to include. (Slaves count for 3/5th of a person)
Case closed.
3
NY, NJ, CT, PA all had slavery into the 1820s. If planters in those states could have used slaves profitably, they would have kept the institution alive.
The 3/5 rule established the value of slaves for purposes of representation in the US House of Representatives.
The Dred Scott Decision established the legal rights of slaveholders in the entirety of the United States.
If you drive from Virginia into NY City with a pistol in your glove compartment it can be confiscated and you go to jail. If you made that journey in 1850 with a slave in your possession, that slave remained your property with no diminishment of your rights.
The Retrocession of 1847 returned the VA part of DC to preserve slavery.
Slavery was a national institution.
The 3/5 rule established the value of slaves for purposes of representation in the US House of Representatives.
The Dred Scott Decision established the legal rights of slaveholders in the entirety of the United States.
If you drive from Virginia into NY City with a pistol in your glove compartment it can be confiscated and you go to jail. If you made that journey in 1850 with a slave in your possession, that slave remained your property with no diminishment of your rights.
The Retrocession of 1847 returned the VA part of DC to preserve slavery.
Slavery was a national institution.
2
One of the largest slaveowners in the North, Isaac Royall, lived and kept slaves in Medford, Massachusetts, about 10 miles north of Boston. His estate is now a public property. A few miles to the west is the Brooks Estate, where there is still a brick wall built by Pompey, one of the slaves of the Brooks family, with a plaque so designating it.
Any defense of the 3/5 rule as NOT codifying racism into our nation's founding document is laughable, tortured, and inane. Of course we baked the racism of southern slave owners of the time into the Constitution, otherwise they would have bailed.
How many summersaults and contortions must one do to interpret the 3/5 clause as anything other than blatantly and unmistakably race-based and discriminatory?! Only a lawyer...
How many summersaults and contortions must one do to interpret the 3/5 clause as anything other than blatantly and unmistakably race-based and discriminatory?! Only a lawyer...
2
Twelve American presidents were slaveowners including the Father of his Country, after whom its capital city is named.
During the 10 years it took to build the White House, George Washington spent time in Philadelphia where a law stated that slaves could apply for freedom if they were in the state for longer than six months. Washington therefore rotated his slaves so that they were never in Philadelphia for long enough. In 1793, he signed the first fugitive slave law, which allowed fugitives to be seized in any state and returned to their owners. Anyone who assisted a fugitive faced a $500 penalty and possible imprisonment.
But maybe Mr Wilentz believes that the presidency isn't "national".
During the 10 years it took to build the White House, George Washington spent time in Philadelphia where a law stated that slaves could apply for freedom if they were in the state for longer than six months. Washington therefore rotated his slaves so that they were never in Philadelphia for long enough. In 1793, he signed the first fugitive slave law, which allowed fugitives to be seized in any state and returned to their owners. Anyone who assisted a fugitive faced a $500 penalty and possible imprisonment.
But maybe Mr Wilentz believes that the presidency isn't "national".
7
The Constitution was mute on slavery because otherwise there would have been no union. It left the matter up to individual states to resolve within their own borders. The South did not secede because of a disagreement over whether the Constitution sanctioned slavery or prohibited slavery. It seceded because it feared the Constitution would one day be amended to abolish slavery. This is why Abraham Lincoln backed the Corwin Amendment, which was proposed in 1860 to persuade Southern states to remain in the Union. The amendment, which was submitted by New York Senator William Seward, read as follows: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” In his first inaugural address Lincoln declared that he had “no objection” to the Corwin Amendment, nor that it be made forever unamendable, The Corwin Amendment won two-thirds support in both the House and the Senate in early 1861, but Southern states seceded before the amendment could be presented to the states for ratification.
3
Something that is bedrock in the claims that slavery was part of the founding principles of the country is the three-fifths rule. As many of your commentators imply, the fact that the Constitution counted slaves as less than full humans shows the racism of the document. But as Mr. Wilentz notes, it was the slaveholding states that wanted slaves counted as full humans and those that abolished slavery that wanted to keep them off the roles entirely. Their full presence in the population count would tilted the new democracy even more dramatically toward the slaveholding states. Limiting their count to three-fifths was not a racist stance, it was one that helped put the country onto the path to abolishing this horrible institution.
5
Bernie Sanders doesn't claim the Constitution legalized slavery, just that racism played a large role in the founding of the USA.
The Constitution is intentionally vague about the legal status of slavery (although the racism is very clear). That is how politicians and lawyers "settle" controversial issues. The meaning of the words is whatever the Supreme Court and other political institutions says, and changes as the country evolves.
The Constitution is intentionally vague about the legal status of slavery (although the racism is very clear). That is how politicians and lawyers "settle" controversial issues. The meaning of the words is whatever the Supreme Court and other political institutions says, and changes as the country evolves.
73
The Constitution wasn't silent or vague--there were "free" (which included indentured servants and Native Americans ) and "other" persons. Calling the not-free "other" really didn't make it vague, just more polite.
1
The language seems clear to me too, but it's vague enough that people have been arguing about what it means for 240 years.
To use a common phrase, it's a distinction without a difference. The "Three Fifths" clause in the Constitution says that representation and taxes "shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, [...] three fifths of all other Persons." So it seems disingenuous to say that slavery is not enshrined in the Constitution simply because the terminology of not-free persons was used instead of "slaves."
83
The three-fifths also may have referred to indentured whites, who came to this shore in large numbers from Europe. During their periods of servitude--which may have lasted 7 to 15 years--they were not counted as a whole person.
The three-fifths clause does not provide protection to slavery. It is a reaction to its existence. If there are no other persons no one is counted as three-fifths of a person.
1
This essay is simply an attack on Bernie Sanders, a ridiculous, absurd, mean attack on Sanders that I am offended by.
7
So constitutionally slavery was no national institution but in every other respect it was. Southern slave money paid for the revolution and fueled northern industry. Slaves built and maintained universities that are our most prestigious today. They built the capitol. They built all the southern railroads. Let's not let ourselves off the hook because the Constitution turns a blind eye to slavery.
48
It doesn't so much turn a blind eye to slavery, as wink at it.
I do not think calling the Constitution a racist document is either accurate or profitable. It is a political document, which reflects a compromise between slavery and anti-slavery interests of the time. This compromise was resolved by the Civil War, which however did not solve the social and economic problems caused by slavery in the US.
57
I am a first generation American citizen and proud of it. Mr. Willentz's argument maybe historically and legally sound, but as a new citizen (who is not white) I find it hard to imagine that slavery was not an integral part of America at its founding. Supreme Court decisions, I believe, affirmed the constitutionality of slavery. I also believe that if Mr Willentz is correct, the 14th Amendment is mostly redundant. The country has paid dearly for slavery in blood and we have come a long way from thos dark days. We continue to make great strides. I believe, it is better to accept the ugly past and rejoice in how we have overcome it.
54
I think this is kind of a technical quibble. It's very interesting that the constitution left slavery only as a local option, but it hardly crushed the system - the slave system grew and thrived, and became the largest form of wealth in the country - but by the time of the Civil War, the free labor economy of the North was beginning to outgrow the South, the slave-owners were feeling threatened - their once-unchallenged power was looking shaky, and they tried to secede and form their own slave empire. It wasn't just an argument over the words of the constitution - the constitution had given them all the protection they needed for a long time - but a historical shift in political and economic power, away from slavery and towards freedom, was going on, and they tried to fight against it.
32
For the past four decades, Boomer and now Gen X historians have been teaching false propaganda about the Constitution to their students, and it's clear from the comments here that it has had a tremendous effect. Wilentz is right about the framers' actual attitudes and the significance of their debates. He's even more right about Frederick Douglass, whose own speech on the Constitution and slavery can be read at http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-constitution-of-... , Even before the Constitution, slavery had been excluded from the territory north of the Ohio River. The northern states were abolishing slavery at roughly the time the Constitituion was written. The idea that America always was, is, and will be first and foremost a racist nation is a destructive self-fulfilling prophecy.
31
The Constitution did not establish slavery as an institution, but did acknowledge its existence. While the 3/5 clause didn't expressly affirm that human beings could be property, it recognized that some were indeed property and could be counted as such. So did the fugitive slave clause, which acknowledged that "property" could run away.
We needed a Constitutional amendment to end slavery because the compromise that is the Constitution let slavery continue as a matter of states' rights and state law. Not saying "no" tacitly said "yes": the snake in our nation's garden.
We needed a Constitutional amendment to end slavery because the compromise that is the Constitution let slavery continue as a matter of states' rights and state law. Not saying "no" tacitly said "yes": the snake in our nation's garden.
3
Sorry, RCT, but you are incorrect about the reason the 3/5 clause was in the constitution. You see, the framers of the North were well aware that if Southern Slave owners were allowed to include all slaves as full bodies and cast votes in their stead, then the south would have control of all national issues. They did not give property rights in this action, but limited the slave owner's ability to control and continue this act through national voting control of national issues. They didn't say yes, they said 'No' with the implicit idea that slavery will and would die with a little time. There was no need to split the country then just as there was a desperate need to keep the country together almost 100 years later. As long as folks like you continue to push the idea that Slavery is solely an American Sin and that White Americans still need to pay for this sin is what drives people apart.
If you are going to argue that slavery was not conceived as a national institution in the Constitution, you would have to argue that antislavery was also not conceived as a national institution and principle. The Constitution was a compromise; to argue that it had one singular intent (for or against slavery) would seem impossible. Isn't the better argument that there are strands and moral vocabularies in our Founding that could be used to argue against slavery later on, but that yes, the Constitution was imperfect?
5
Trying to make your argument that way is over simplifying the actual argument. The framers simply were going to let slavery die on the vine as that was the best alternative at the time. Just because they don't say 'Yes' or No' doesn't mean they didn't mean it. Notice the Constitution never says 'All rights bestowed upon WHITE PEOPLE...' but you would think that with your argument, it does by past attempts by race baiters to push their agenda.
In righteous indignation, many commentators miss the point. In law, slavery was based in the states. Some of those states attempted to incorporate it in the new national government established by the Constitution. They were thwarted. This was not final victory over slavery -- much less racism -- but it was a major turning point. After decades of trying unsuccessfully to reverse this decision, some states left the union in 1861 because they believed their state control of slavery was doomed. After the bloodiest war in American history, slavery was extinguished in the Constitution, forever. Living up to our ideals is a struggle and always will be. How can that struggle continue if those who fight for the good are blindly damned for not achieving the perfect? Try reading the article again.
71
This article contrasts the legalistic notion of 'slave' versus 'free' in the context of the legalistic vocabulary of the Constitution. The contrast misleads. It is more productive to contrast 'citizen' versus 'commodity.' Then one question become, "When did black people ever cease being discussed as a commodity?" Ever? Pick a time and date. That would be a meaningful discussion.
7
Apparently, in reading some of the comments, the US was the only place in the history of the world where slavery ever existed or where bad things were done to innocents. I guess the British - who allowed slavery until almost the mid-1800's - don't count as part of our founding, for I guess we just arose from whole cloth.
Slavery has always been an evil, but it is sadly deeply ingrained in human history, yes, gasp, even non-European and non-white nation/tribe history. It existed in all parts of the world long before the American colonies ever came to be.
Was it wrong we had it here? Of course, but please stop trying to paint the US as somehow an outlier of evil in human history.
Slavery has always been an evil, but it is sadly deeply ingrained in human history, yes, gasp, even non-European and non-white nation/tribe history. It existed in all parts of the world long before the American colonies ever came to be.
Was it wrong we had it here? Of course, but please stop trying to paint the US as somehow an outlier of evil in human history.
45
In 1828 Mexican President Vicente Guerrero- half black African and half brown Native- abolished slavery everywhere in Mexico except Texas.
Brazil abolished slavery in 1888. But slavery was abolished in Quilombo dos Palmares Brazil by Gunga Zanga and his escaped slave followers 150 years before the American Revolution.
Brazil abolished slavery in 1888. But slavery was abolished in Quilombo dos Palmares Brazil by Gunga Zanga and his escaped slave followers 150 years before the American Revolution.
1
No one is claiming that slavery existed only in the United States. The argument that slavery wasn't that bad because other cultures also had it is a very juvenile argument, smacking of children trying to distract from their own misbehavior: "Billy did it too!" Recently, I have been seeing this unneeded reminder that slavery existed in other cultures pop up again and again when commenters try to push back against the disturbing reality of slavery. Yes, slavery existed in older cultures. Given that the Enlightenment began well before the Constitution was promulgated, it is surprising and disturbing that the supposedly cultured men of Britain and Europe persisted in promoting slavery at such a late date. Their ancestors may not have known better; they certainly did. Paradoxically, their very claims of superiority were based on their intellectual ability; they prided themselves on their valuing of liberty and their philosophical scrutiny of moral values, but somehow could not apply these values because of their self-interest. It is an ugly truth, but one that our nation must acknowledge in order to move forward. (Also, Bernie was not wrong--note that Bernie did not state that the Constitution, but rather the nation was founded on racist principles.)
1
.... and the US style of slavery was milder than that of other countries in the Western Hemisphere. Let us also not forget that slavery was legal in Brazil until 1888.
I have to disagree with this, it is sanctioned specifically in Article I, Section 9. The bit about importing persons and imposing a tax on such importation. Also note the time limit. There is also the 3/5th clause.
The fact that the Article specifically separates migration and importation of persons leads to no other conclusion
"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."
The fact that the Article specifically separates migration and importation of persons leads to no other conclusion
"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."
7
We revere the Constitution as the foundation of our country, yet we sometimes forget that it's not just a manifesto for the ages, but also a working document that guided - or in this case specified - certain actions that were relevant to the concerns of the day. I believe this is the only part of the Constitution that has a "sunset clause", and the fact that the date of the sunset was a hard date and not one determined by formula indicates that this provision was to end forevermore in 1808. Certainly that weakens the argument that the Constitution permitted slavery as an absolute right, whether that argument was made in the 1850s or in current times.
You are misinterpreting that line. That clause was specific to importing within the states and territories, not international movement. It was believed that as slave owners expanded their businesses, they may wish to move their work force accordingly. This clause was there to prevent a current slave owner from taking slaves from his current state where ownership was legal, and moving them to a state where it was not legal, but allowed since it would now fall under interstate commerce. The taxes were onerous for a reason... To prevent folks from wanting to do it.
I agree with Mr. Wilentz that slavery was not, de jure, enshrined in the Constitution. Nonetheless, it was, on a de facto basis, sanctioned. Slavery in the South and the consequent segregation in both the North and South can, without too much exaggeration, justify Mr. Sanders' statement.
5
De facto is misnaming. It was felt that for the colonies to unite as one country, while maintaining their individual statehood, coming in ham handed and simply ending their way of life and commerce was counterproductive. Time heals all wounds unless someone picks at the scab. The founders understood this and created a timeline within the Constitution to allow this to happen. Unfortunately, almost 225 years later, we still have people who don't understand the amount of thought these great people used when creating this country and they still want to hash out old, long done, issues for special interest gain.
This article is absurd from the outset - it equates something being enshrined in the Constitution with being a "National Institution" - as if no national institution can exist outside the Constitution. All of the author's arguments about the Constitution are interesting but pointless in this context.
He does nothing to disprove Senator Sanders' comment that America was founded on racist principles - we had slavery! And for a long time it was supported in both the north and the south.
He does nothing to disprove Senator Sanders' comment that America was founded on racist principles - we had slavery! And for a long time it was supported in both the north and the south.
8
Thank you. Since enslavement of Africans, and the indentured servitude of countless Europeans, was indeed legal in all of the Colonies at one point or another, the arguments many of us raise about slavery being a national institution seem to be valid. This essay does not give any attention to the racial attitudes held by many "free white men."
Christie- What you fail to understand is that prior to this country becoming a country. slavery existed on the continent. So the Country did not start it. The framers understood that it wasn't something that was going away overnight and prepared the Constitution appropriately as they could to do away with slavery as time eroded support for it. What you also fail to understand is that while most people equate slavery with ONLY black people, there were actually slaves of every color. One of the largest slave owners prior to the ratification of the Constitution was a Black Man who owned several large plantations. But folks like you would rather forego the actual history so that the rewritten history plays into your personal agenda.
Slavery and racism intertwined before the mid 1800s. They are separate: slavery was outlawed, but racism continued, even thrived: the KKK and Jim Crow saw to that.
Bernie Sanders understands the difference: hence, "The United States, ... in many ways was created, and I’m sorry to have to say this, from way back on racist principles, that’s a fact.” The Native Americans, too, understand as well the depth and breadth of Northern European privilege. Native Americans and Blacks know too well the brutal methods and spiritual rot used by Northern Europeans to isolate them, rob them and depress them. Slavery was but an incidental tool of the complex economic model that kept and keeps Blacks, Native Americans and Hispanics - and poor whites - suppressed and oppressed. Slavery was more clearly stated in the Constitution to be a national institution than was or is the Federal Reserve or the Coast Guard or the Air Force or any of the many elements of our government that depends upon the Constitution.
Mr. Wilentz might as well write that capitalism is not a national institution. Yet, to his credit, he is writes charming revisionist history.
Bernie Sanders understands the difference: hence, "The United States, ... in many ways was created, and I’m sorry to have to say this, from way back on racist principles, that’s a fact.” The Native Americans, too, understand as well the depth and breadth of Northern European privilege. Native Americans and Blacks know too well the brutal methods and spiritual rot used by Northern Europeans to isolate them, rob them and depress them. Slavery was but an incidental tool of the complex economic model that kept and keeps Blacks, Native Americans and Hispanics - and poor whites - suppressed and oppressed. Slavery was more clearly stated in the Constitution to be a national institution than was or is the Federal Reserve or the Coast Guard or the Air Force or any of the many elements of our government that depends upon the Constitution.
Mr. Wilentz might as well write that capitalism is not a national institution. Yet, to his credit, he is writes charming revisionist history.
56
So what do you say about the large plantation owners who were black at the time and owned slaves?
So many great comments here but Wilentz conflating slavery as an institution with racism is clearly one of the most confusing aspects of this argument. Like many other commenters I think he's wrong to deny the more than tacit acceptance that the Constitution gave to the institution of slavery, but Sanders is talking about an abiding cultural and institutional racism, massively impacting but not even limited to African Americans. Thanks for pointing this out.
I would refer Senator Sanders to Lincoln's Cooper Union speech, one of the first entries in The Times's marvelous "Disunion" series.
2
Many thanks for this reference. I shall refer to it forthwith. Thank you also for your praise of "Disunion." It has been eye-opening for this staunch liberal and Republican from the party's earliest days. I am now a registered Democrat in response to the devolution of the GOP to troglodyte reactionary status.
This column is a seriously over-technical and narrow approach to the idea. When Sanders says the USA was in many ways created on racist principles, he's not talking just about the Constitution. And regardless, the Constitution sanctions slavery and provides vital rights to slaveowners, in particular by abrogating the then-understood notion that slaves became free when entering free territory by granting a right for slaveowners to recover their property from free states.
8
Sorry, but you are wrong. The 3/5ths clause was put in there to prevent slave owners from using slaves as a voting tool. Had slaves been given 1 vote per voting qualified body, then the slave owners of the south would have controlled the national voting block and slavery may have become in grained in the national fabric forever. Also, the idea that slave owners could recover their slaves in free states was simply a nod to allow it to happen, it was not a nod that it was sanctioned, approved, and supported by the Gov't. In fact, there was no help given by or support provided to slave owners to carry this out. It is only folks like you who wish to somehow garner political clout for the pains of generations ago that went through this to its end that it doesn't die completely.
He seems to be missing the point. And greatly downplaying the significance of the 3/5 clause as well.
I also have a problem with his first sentence. If the Civil War was over a Constitutional issue it would have been fought in the Supreme Court, which was totally pro-south. I believe the South was more concerned with Lincoln's ability to curb slavery in the territories, which would have eventually eroded the South's constitutionally-rigged advantage in the Congress.
I also have a problem with his first sentence. If the Civil War was over a Constitutional issue it would have been fought in the Supreme Court, which was totally pro-south. I believe the South was more concerned with Lincoln's ability to curb slavery in the territories, which would have eventually eroded the South's constitutionally-rigged advantage in the Congress.
3
So if the people that were writing the constitution owned slaves....how do you expect them to outlaw slavery in the constitution?
Its like asking the current congress to outlaw investments in corporations that benefit from the laws that congress passes. Who is going to write the law?
Its like asking the current congress to outlaw investments in corporations that benefit from the laws that congress passes. Who is going to write the law?
3
Boobooyaga-nonsense.
Our civil war began over the NON-simple question of whether a state or a confederacy of states had the power to sunder itself from the union over ANY specific interest. Granted, there was no OTHER question that suggested a need so dramatically for such a division than slavery, but let's get the impelling factors straight. Lincoln was quite willing to tolerate a perpetuation of slavery in the states where it still existed (confident that with time it would die out naturally), but was simply unwilling to tolerate insurrection.
But I agree that the United States was not created on racist principles or to explicitly perpetuate them. Racist principles simply were the near-universal continuum within which ALL actions were undertaken at the time -- really throughout the world, not simply here. As the world, and large segments of Americans, evolved to the point where they found human slavery unacceptable even while they maintained racist principles, the viability of an economic way of life in our South became untenable, sufficiently so that those interests saw no other way to perpetuate a society that already had become globally obsolete than to separate. We resolved that South Carolina belonged to all Americans and not just to plantation owners, and the mischief began.
Our civil war began over the NON-simple question of whether a state or a confederacy of states had the power to sunder itself from the union over ANY specific interest. Granted, there was no OTHER question that suggested a need so dramatically for such a division than slavery, but let's get the impelling factors straight. Lincoln was quite willing to tolerate a perpetuation of slavery in the states where it still existed (confident that with time it would die out naturally), but was simply unwilling to tolerate insurrection.
But I agree that the United States was not created on racist principles or to explicitly perpetuate them. Racist principles simply were the near-universal continuum within which ALL actions were undertaken at the time -- really throughout the world, not simply here. As the world, and large segments of Americans, evolved to the point where they found human slavery unacceptable even while they maintained racist principles, the viability of an economic way of life in our South became untenable, sufficiently so that those interests saw no other way to perpetuate a society that already had become globally obsolete than to separate. We resolved that South Carolina belonged to all Americans and not just to plantation owners, and the mischief began.
7
Applesauce. The mildly interesting, academic question of whether a state or confederacy of states could sunder itself from the union over "any" specified interest was emphatically not at issue when the eleven southern states, without waiting for an answer to this esoteric question, simply seceded. No one cared, or does now, that the answer was no: secession was, in Lincoln's unusually harsh words, a "farcical pretense." Lincoln went on to explain that secession would mean the end of the union; we can analogize that actual separation meant the end of the union as divorce means the end of a marriage. No union would remain. Dress it up as nicely as you like, the fact is, the Civil War was fought over slavery.
To argue otherwise is like saying "We are divorcing over the question of whether, under the established law of our state, we can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that we have sufficiently irreconcilable differences that one of us can sunder him or herself from the marriage." Again, I say, applesauce.
To argue otherwise is like saying "We are divorcing over the question of whether, under the established law of our state, we can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that we have sufficiently irreconcilable differences that one of us can sunder him or herself from the marriage." Again, I say, applesauce.
Coleslaw.
Your argument isn't very internally consistent if nobody cared whether a state or states could secede for "any" reason, yet secession to Lincoln, again for any reason, would have spelled the end not only to our union but to the proposition that government of, by and for the people was even possible if we couldn't cohere despite differences.
EVERYONE cared about this question, and at the beginning of the war the majority of northern Americans saw it as a means to preserve the union, not to end slavery.
To me, the civil war probably wouldn't have been fought except for slavery, but there are those who disagree, pointing out the financial enslavement northern interests had made of an agrarian South and the South's anger at this for decades. The point was that a pretext for dissolution had been offered, and Lincoln rejected not only the pretext but saw as nation-ending the very need for one to justify a dissolution he rejected adamantly as unacceptable.
But the main question proposed by this op-ed is whether or not the U.S. was born to perpetuate racist principles. My counter is that it wasn't, and that such principles were merely the near-universal context in which ALL actions were taken then, when they were considered at all.
Your argument isn't very internally consistent if nobody cared whether a state or states could secede for "any" reason, yet secession to Lincoln, again for any reason, would have spelled the end not only to our union but to the proposition that government of, by and for the people was even possible if we couldn't cohere despite differences.
EVERYONE cared about this question, and at the beginning of the war the majority of northern Americans saw it as a means to preserve the union, not to end slavery.
To me, the civil war probably wouldn't have been fought except for slavery, but there are those who disagree, pointing out the financial enslavement northern interests had made of an agrarian South and the South's anger at this for decades. The point was that a pretext for dissolution had been offered, and Lincoln rejected not only the pretext but saw as nation-ending the very need for one to justify a dissolution he rejected adamantly as unacceptable.
But the main question proposed by this op-ed is whether or not the U.S. was born to perpetuate racist principles. My counter is that it wasn't, and that such principles were merely the near-universal context in which ALL actions were taken then, when they were considered at all.
Slavery ended 150 years ago after 750,000 Americans died in a brutal Civil War. Why are we wasting our time discussing some points of this history in the context of today's racism?
All Americans face real income and wealth inequality today, and today's racism is fueled by this economic degradation.
Let's deal with problems we can actually do something about today, and moving forward, not argue about 18th and 19th Century settled issues that divide us, are unsolvable and divert our attention from the real economic and social justice issues we must address in the 21st Century.
All Americans face real income and wealth inequality today, and today's racism is fueled by this economic degradation.
Let's deal with problems we can actually do something about today, and moving forward, not argue about 18th and 19th Century settled issues that divide us, are unsolvable and divert our attention from the real economic and social justice issues we must address in the 21st Century.
3
Because black lives do not matter as much in 21st Century America as the lives of Cliven Bundy, Eric Frein, Eric Rudolph and Kim Davis and their ilk.
1
What this piece reflects it what I've suspected all along. That the cultural context justification for slavery as a product of an era is patently false.
The slave owning Founders knew viscerally that slavery was abhorrent and morally repugnant. The clear evidence for my assertion is , when crafting a document for posterity, they deliberately, over some strident objections, refused to legitimize owning people as property with Constitutional cover and sanction.
Out of convenience and perverse tradition the Founders tolerated slavery, but their ultimate refusal to justify it with a Constitutional mandate illustrates that they knew damn well in their own era that slavery was morally reprehensible , barbaric and cruel.
The slave owning Founders knew viscerally that slavery was abhorrent and morally repugnant. The clear evidence for my assertion is , when crafting a document for posterity, they deliberately, over some strident objections, refused to legitimize owning people as property with Constitutional cover and sanction.
Out of convenience and perverse tradition the Founders tolerated slavery, but their ultimate refusal to justify it with a Constitutional mandate illustrates that they knew damn well in their own era that slavery was morally reprehensible , barbaric and cruel.
3
On a tour of Monticello, it was explained that Jefferson struggled with the idea of slavery, and ultimately decided that while it was morally repugnant, it was so intertwined with the economy of the times that he could not figure out a way to unwind it without causing economic chaos. He felt that it was a problem that future generations would have to solve.
And then he got the historical ball rolling by fathering a child with Sally Heming.
And then he got the historical ball rolling by fathering a child with Sally Heming.
Not only that, but they realized that outright ending it then would have destroyed the very thin cloth that held the proposed country together. Their decision to let it whither away was also out of the desire to see a stronger country stand up to the evil when it became an issue to fight for. That was not possible at the time. They had foresight, something many here can't seem to understand.
In 1860, 8 out of the 9 wealthiest states were slaveholding states.
The fugitive slave laws ensured that goal.
Mr. Wilenz has not acknowledged the horrible reality of what happened to African-Americans and the First Peoples from the beginnings of the colonial landings.This sophist piece ignores that RACIST horror perpetrated on millions of people.
That legacy: the present Jim Crow laws, the voting and housing restrictions , the Native American Reservations, the millions of people of color - Gray Wastes - languishing in the prison holes, the ghettos of Baltimore, Ferguson, the police brutality, the treatment of latinos...all of this testifies to that national wealthy CONSTITUTION which was chartered mostly to protect the wealthy landowners the 1%.
The fugitive slave laws ensured that goal.
Mr. Wilenz has not acknowledged the horrible reality of what happened to African-Americans and the First Peoples from the beginnings of the colonial landings.This sophist piece ignores that RACIST horror perpetrated on millions of people.
That legacy: the present Jim Crow laws, the voting and housing restrictions , the Native American Reservations, the millions of people of color - Gray Wastes - languishing in the prison holes, the ghettos of Baltimore, Ferguson, the police brutality, the treatment of latinos...all of this testifies to that national wealthy CONSTITUTION which was chartered mostly to protect the wealthy landowners the 1%.
6
See "The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism" Edward E. Baptist
1
Slavery ended almost 150 years ago. No one that was a slave or owned a slave is alive anymore. Get over it ......... move on. Only then will the races start to get along.
5
We are becoming East European. Every argument between nations starts with accusations of invasion and atrocities from 1200 AD. I agree, give it a rest.
1
Only when we understand our history will we be able to "get over" our history.
1
Every black person lives with the historical burdens of American slavery and Jim Crow.
Every white person lives with the historical benefits of American slavery and Jim Crow.
Getting over it requires that all black persons be accepted as divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights in reality instead of rhetoric.
Every white person lives with the historical benefits of American slavery and Jim Crow.
Getting over it requires that all black persons be accepted as divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights in reality instead of rhetoric.
2
So the founders permitted slavery, promised to return escaped slaves, valued slaves as 3/5 of a person, and promised not to regulate slavery for at least 20 years.
Tell me again why Sanders is wrong.
Tell me again why Sanders is wrong.
61
Because all those things were temporary, due to a compromise.
There was no such disagreement, nor such ambivalence, about the founding principles that endure today - freedom of speech, the right to privacy, etc.
There was no such disagreement, nor such ambivalence, about the founding principles that endure today - freedom of speech, the right to privacy, etc.
There is a distinct difference between "founders" (your choice) and "constitution" (what Sanders and the article discusses).
We need to recognize that slavery did not end with the Civil War. The capitalist machine that relied on slavery to produce marketable cotton soon found ways to replace slaves in chains with freed slaves enchained by the economic system (tenant farmers) and overseas laborers enchained by other political systems to provide cheap labor to American and other multinationals. The union movement that for decades held this system in check is now being dismantled by those same capitalists, and countries like Malaysia and Indonesia that promote slave labor are welcomed into the family of nations just as the 11 states of the Confederacy were welcomed into the U.S. Americans have never had a problem living happily with cognitive dissonance, and do today just as they did in 1789.
19
Prison is the exception to the abolition of slavery in the 13th Amendment.
1
In your own words you have state that the nation as we know it could not have been formed without tolerating slavery. By your own admission it was perceived to be fundamentally necessary.
"The delegates could never have created a federal union if they had given power to the national government to meddle in the property laws of the slave states. Slavery would have to be tolerated as a local institution."
My question is, was it really fundamentally necessary? Could we not have fought this battle for human dignity from the very beginning?
"The delegates could never have created a federal union if they had given power to the national government to meddle in the property laws of the slave states. Slavery would have to be tolerated as a local institution."
My question is, was it really fundamentally necessary? Could we not have fought this battle for human dignity from the very beginning?
3
Of course not, except by abandoning the idea of federalism. As most Americans seem unaware, the Brits tried to get the colonies back for many decades after 1776, and might well have succeeded but for our having a strong federal government (and the distraction of Napoleon).
Wilentz sets up a straw man in order to argue a legalistic construct. The assertion that the United States was "founded" on racist principles is a fact, not a legal interpretation.
In Conn in 1774, half of all the ministers, lawyers, and public officials owned slaves, as did a third of medical doctors. Connecticut abolished slavery in 1848, but "free" blacks remained de jure disenfranchised.
The slave trade formed the very basis of the economic life of New England. It was Yankee thrift which discovered that slave ships were most economical with only 3 feet 3 inches of vertical space to a deck and 13 inches of surface area per slave.
A list of the leading New England slave traders is largely coextensive with a list of the region's prominent families: the Fanueils, Royalls, and Cabots of Massachusetts; the Wantons, Browns, and Champlins of Rhode Island; the Whipples of New Hampshire; the Eastons of Connecticut; Willing & Morris of Philadelphia. Ezra Stiles imported slaves while president of Yale. Six slave traders served as mayor of Philadelphia. After the invention of the cotton gin, King Cotton took off in the South. Financing, manufacture, shipping and trade for the cotton industry was centered in New York.
One can argue about whether the original Constitution "enshrined" slavery or by compromise "merely" tolerated it. One cannot argue that the country was not "founded," politically, economically and legally, upon racism.
In Conn in 1774, half of all the ministers, lawyers, and public officials owned slaves, as did a third of medical doctors. Connecticut abolished slavery in 1848, but "free" blacks remained de jure disenfranchised.
The slave trade formed the very basis of the economic life of New England. It was Yankee thrift which discovered that slave ships were most economical with only 3 feet 3 inches of vertical space to a deck and 13 inches of surface area per slave.
A list of the leading New England slave traders is largely coextensive with a list of the region's prominent families: the Fanueils, Royalls, and Cabots of Massachusetts; the Wantons, Browns, and Champlins of Rhode Island; the Whipples of New Hampshire; the Eastons of Connecticut; Willing & Morris of Philadelphia. Ezra Stiles imported slaves while president of Yale. Six slave traders served as mayor of Philadelphia. After the invention of the cotton gin, King Cotton took off in the South. Financing, manufacture, shipping and trade for the cotton industry was centered in New York.
One can argue about whether the original Constitution "enshrined" slavery or by compromise "merely" tolerated it. One cannot argue that the country was not "founded," politically, economically and legally, upon racism.
14
It's time to stop Americas guilt trip about slavery. We didn't do anything other nations didn't do. Slavery existed throughout history and among all races. We repealed our slavery, it's over. We should stop listening to self serving groups that would like to endlessly milk this for their own benefit.
2
Constitution was draft by people and people are never perfect. The Constitution as drafted during the founding of this nation is a compromise between the anti- and pro-slavery fractions of the country. The power of the Constitution is that it is designed to evolve with time and to help us "form a more perfect union." The Civil War is the first major soul searching of our nation and the outcome is the 13th amendment that bring justice to all races. It is dangerous to put the Constitution of 1789 on a pedestal instead of recognizing the founders' wisdom that the U.S. Constitution and the country's citizens are both meant to be improved.
1
Professor Wilentz, we eagerly await publication of Part II in this series, presumably titled "Our Respect for Indigenous People: Warm Blankets for All."
15
Right on!
1
Dr. Wilentz does some nifty, if rather intricate, tap-dancing around the 3/5 Compromise. It is, in fact, a tacit constitutional endorsement of slavery. That Southerners didn't get a full vote for each slave owned is meaningless in this context. That slavery was recognized as having any legal legitimacy whatsoever, and the failure to recognize slaves as citizens with the right to vote, is proof that slavery was sanctioned in the Constitution.
14
Please explain why the 3/5 clause is meaningless. It seems clearly an antislavery provision designed to weaken the power of the slave states in the House of Representatives.
I'm sorry but it's seems plain silly to look back at US history and the mass destruction of native people and the enslavement of Africans and "academically" make the claim that this did not reflect racist principles. The cloistered myopia here--the utter lack of common sense--is astounding.
21
The author does not claim that the founding and early development of the US were devoid of racist principles. He merely argues, very persuasively, that those principles were not centrally embodied in the US Constitution.
Please remember also that slavery was neither invented in the US, nor did it end here. It was once ubiquitous. Many Native Americans, the Aztecs, for example, owned slaves. Slavery continued, including Europeans held as slaves, in North Africa and the Middle East until World War I.
Please remember also that slavery was neither invented in the US, nor did it end here. It was once ubiquitous. Many Native Americans, the Aztecs, for example, owned slaves. Slavery continued, including Europeans held as slaves, in North Africa and the Middle East until World War I.
The author clearly states in paragraph 3 that it's not a fact that the nation was in many ways created on racist principles. This is absurd and contrary to the the actual--and not merely documentary--evidence of US history. This line of discussion is near-sighted at best and dangerously confused at worst, although on the bright side I think it is indeed helpful to re-state frequently that the Civil War was traitorously initiated by the Confederacy primarily because it wished to perpetuate human slavery.
the older i get the more i am fascinated by the inability of words to hold to their received meaning.
we have no public opinion polling to decide the answer, but even in 1780 the concept that slavery was immoral was probably not shared by a majority of white colonists. disputes among the wealthy and educated constitutional elites do not proxy for the common opinion of the times. sanders does not say *the constitution* is founded on racism, but the country itself: and taking that to mean the national attitudes, economy, trade and commerce, he is correct.
for the rest, the formulation that the constitution does not sanction slavery in national law but tolerates it as a local institution is a lawyerly quibble. the constitution was not framed *upon* the institution of slavery, but it was certainly framed *around* it.
we have no public opinion polling to decide the answer, but even in 1780 the concept that slavery was immoral was probably not shared by a majority of white colonists. disputes among the wealthy and educated constitutional elites do not proxy for the common opinion of the times. sanders does not say *the constitution* is founded on racism, but the country itself: and taking that to mean the national attitudes, economy, trade and commerce, he is correct.
for the rest, the formulation that the constitution does not sanction slavery in national law but tolerates it as a local institution is a lawyerly quibble. the constitution was not framed *upon* the institution of slavery, but it was certainly framed *around* it.
18
In 1780, no one living in the United States was a colonist...
This is yet another editorial based on a strawman argument. Stating that the nation was "founded on racist principles" in no way implies a constitutional argument for either side. The fact is that slavery existed at the birth of this nation and neither the constitution nor any law passed until after the Civil War attempted to change that. Save the mental gymnastics for actual debates.
22
Thank you Professor Wilentz for showing that our history is more complicated and nuanced than activists, newspaper columnists, and politicians want to admit or recognize. Today, people look at a result and infer the cause from the result, for example, there was slavery so we were founded on slavery, and there is racism so our system is racist and every disparate impact is always because of this systemic racism.
Most of our political rhetoric is based on this simplistic logical fallacy. The causes for any result are always more subtle and complex, but require more thought, analysis and work and a commitment to objectivity to tease out. Complicated explanations don’t lend themselves to sound bites and fiery broadsides. No one thinks with subtlety or nuance anymore, there is too little rational discourse and too many people who want to appeal to our emotions as well as too many people who would rather have their buttons pushed than think for themselves.
Professor Wilentz has reaffirmed that to understand our past and our present we should look to professional historians and not the amateurs writing in most newspapers, magazines and blogs, TV talking heads or politicians running for office.
Most of our political rhetoric is based on this simplistic logical fallacy. The causes for any result are always more subtle and complex, but require more thought, analysis and work and a commitment to objectivity to tease out. Complicated explanations don’t lend themselves to sound bites and fiery broadsides. No one thinks with subtlety or nuance anymore, there is too little rational discourse and too many people who want to appeal to our emotions as well as too many people who would rather have their buttons pushed than think for themselves.
Professor Wilentz has reaffirmed that to understand our past and our present we should look to professional historians and not the amateurs writing in most newspapers, magazines and blogs, TV talking heads or politicians running for office.
7
How's this for subtlety:
"There is no document of civilization that is not also, and at the same time, a document of barbarism."
"There is no document of civilization that is not also, and at the same time, a document of barbarism."
There are absolute ways of looking at this question. "Did the original Constitution enshrine slavery?" Absolutely. "Was the Constitution adopted only because there was a compromise on slavery and that the country was better off with an amendable Constitution as a place to start rather than no Constitution at all?" Absolutely. "Was the original Constitution a flawed document?" Absolutely. "Did the United States ultimately get it right on the institution of slavery?" Absolutely. "Is it true that there is no absolute answer to Sean Wilentz's argument?" Absolutely
10
@ Rosemont: Kudos. Elegantly and succinctly phrased.
Thomas Jefferson condemned King George for allowing slavery. And, the Civil War was not about slavery but states rights and the war goes on today !?
1
So the civil war was about state's rights? Exactly which right do you think the southerners were trying to defend? Read the documents from the era and they will leave no doubt that the 'right' which concerned the founders of the Confederacy involved ownership of slaves.
Jefferson edited that out of the Declaration and kept slaves, and those states rights' we hear so much about (and which are always a primary justification for evils like segregation) were pretty much all a matter of a state's right to maintain slavery.
That's what the South said it was fighting over, and that's what the South fought over.
Lost big time over, too.
That's what the South said it was fighting over, and that's what the South fought over.
Lost big time over, too.
And then Mr. Jefferson tore up his dedication to emancipation his beautiful Monticello was unsustainable without slave labor. Hypocrisy, thy name is Jefferson.
Transport Professor Wilentz back to 1858 in, say, Georgia or Mississippi and stand him next to an enslaved person who's been beaten so badly his flesh is torn from his body and now salt is being poured into his wounds to teach him a lesson, and hear Professor Wilentz speak to his fellow human being:
"Well, look at it this way. It could be worse. I mean the Constitution could be sanctioning what's happening to you right now. Your agony could be institutionalized. But it's not. I know it looks like help isn't on the way, but, trust me, it is. A Civil War will begin shortly, it will last five years and will pile up hundreds of thousands of corpses before you get some limited relief. But luckily, no institution needs to be dismantled to stop this horror from happening to you, so maybe that will shorten the war. Or maybe not. Anyway, hang in there. Don't talk back next time to the overseer and things may not go so badly for you. He's not relying on an institution to give him the right to whip you, so that's one clear sign that he's a sensible guy. He realizes that you and your fellow bondsmen have created, and literally embody, millions of dollars of wealth in this country. He wants to keep you working. And to do it he knows he don't need no stinkin' institution. So take care."
"Well, look at it this way. It could be worse. I mean the Constitution could be sanctioning what's happening to you right now. Your agony could be institutionalized. But it's not. I know it looks like help isn't on the way, but, trust me, it is. A Civil War will begin shortly, it will last five years and will pile up hundreds of thousands of corpses before you get some limited relief. But luckily, no institution needs to be dismantled to stop this horror from happening to you, so maybe that will shorten the war. Or maybe not. Anyway, hang in there. Don't talk back next time to the overseer and things may not go so badly for you. He's not relying on an institution to give him the right to whip you, so that's one clear sign that he's a sensible guy. He realizes that you and your fellow bondsmen have created, and literally embody, millions of dollars of wealth in this country. He wants to keep you working. And to do it he knows he don't need no stinkin' institution. So take care."
22
I think this can safely be described as putting words in another person's mouth.
I don't mean to be crass but you lack a basic understanding of property, ownership and slavery.
A slave is treated as a good. Unlike a replaceable employee, a slave is property that must be taken care of. Only a very foolish slave owner would purposely beat her slave so viciously that the flesh is torn from the bone... and then poor salt on those wounds. That would in all instances result in the death of the slave and a 100% loss of the value of the property.
Like I wrote, I'm not trying to be crass but too many people only look to Hollywood for their history lessons.
A slave is treated as a good. Unlike a replaceable employee, a slave is property that must be taken care of. Only a very foolish slave owner would purposely beat her slave so viciously that the flesh is torn from the bone... and then poor salt on those wounds. That would in all instances result in the death of the slave and a 100% loss of the value of the property.
Like I wrote, I'm not trying to be crass but too many people only look to Hollywood for their history lessons.
Sounds about right...
Too much hair-splitting here! Of course the Constitution did not codify slavery, but it certainly didn't repudiate it either. The Constitution recognized and condoned slavery as a state property right best left to the states. Classic "kick the can down the road" solution, that only worked for a while.
So what do readers and commenters think about Yale's discussion on whether to erase the name of alum Calhoun from one of its residential colleges? Remove this honorific because he ended up on the wrong side of history? Or keep it but add more information about Calhoun's views (in which he was far from alone) in the context of his time?
So what do readers and commenters think about Yale's discussion on whether to erase the name of alum Calhoun from one of its residential colleges? Remove this honorific because he ended up on the wrong side of history? Or keep it but add more information about Calhoun's views (in which he was far from alone) in the context of his time?
10
The "Institutions" of this country have always been caught between the rhetoric of "All men are created equal" and exactly how to tax your slaves and women at "three-fifths" because they are NOT equal.
The women still are not equal (having the 'vote' is not 'equal' within the Constitution), but, gosh, we're not slave-owners anymore.... just increasingly caught between the Republican argument that there should be NO minimum standards on wages versus those who make $1,000,000,000.00's, and those who have no reproductive rights versus 'men' who's reproduction is not manipulated.
The slavery in this country has gone from 'de facto' to 'de jure", real slavery versus Republican Lite slavery.
I find none of them impressive, nor their Constitution.
The women still are not equal (having the 'vote' is not 'equal' within the Constitution), but, gosh, we're not slave-owners anymore.... just increasingly caught between the Republican argument that there should be NO minimum standards on wages versus those who make $1,000,000,000.00's, and those who have no reproductive rights versus 'men' who's reproduction is not manipulated.
The slavery in this country has gone from 'de facto' to 'de jure", real slavery versus Republican Lite slavery.
I find none of them impressive, nor their Constitution.
8
The African human enslavement issue was not about property. It was about the meaning of persons under the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States in Dred Scott v. Sanford reached the correct legal interpretation that the Founding Fathers intended that enslaved Africans were not person's anywhere in the United States unless a state decided otherwise. The only way to change that original immoral evil intent on a national basis was by amending the Constitution in the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment and passing national civil rights legislation.
54
The reason property comes into it is simple: slaves were considered property first, and people--happy-go-lucky, childlike people who couldn't handle liberty--only a very distant second.
Yes those amendments were essential. And they were possible because Lincoln saw what Mr. Wilentz wrote about. And because those who agreed with Lincoln fought a war. The amendments didn't drop down from the heavens. Many died to make them possible.
1
Psst...the driving force behind Dred Scott was the belief that we were property. Saying American Slavery wasn't about property is like saying Kim Kardashian isn't about publicity.
Where do you get this stuff?
Where do you get this stuff?
Its cutest outrage is to skip over the slavery giant, Maryland-born, SCOTUS Chief Justice Roger Taney, who finally left to argue the institution's inclusion in the constitution, and more importantly, the case of its constitutionality declared--by constitutional law--white supremacy and negro chattel inviolate! Taney's brilliant, but flawed ruling in Dred Scott establishes the best case against this nonsense of cherry picked, side-arguments that put appearance over substance. a view pieces out of context of the whole to reach a pre-formed conclusion.
This rhetoric is classic confusion--and deliberate miscalculation!--to fix history the way arguments about social security, the budget, national security, executive privilege, states rights, taxes, women's rights, and gun laws are fixed: to take advantage of a lie.
This rhetoric is classic confusion--and deliberate miscalculation!--to fix history the way arguments about social security, the budget, national security, executive privilege, states rights, taxes, women's rights, and gun laws are fixed: to take advantage of a lie.
9
Professor Wilentz wrote clearly. These sentences are so overloaded that it's difficult to discern the writer's point.
One, Taney wasn't brilliant he was a flak for the slave power. Two, not every Supreme Court decision is a proper interpretation of the constitution. And Three you're guilty of the thing you are accusing Professor Wilentz of doing. You are the one cherry picking what suits you and ignoring anything that doesn't. Professor Wilentz is trying to see the whole and you are refusing to look.
Slavery existed when the constitution was written--it was not outlawed even though it was acknowledged by the 3/5 compromise--therefore, it was accepted as established fact--common law? To deny this racial component exists is apologetic, at best.
12
Of course, Wilentz is right that slavery was never a national institution. The constitution did not forbid slavery, abortion, murder, incest, or mandatory bacon & egg breakfasts. Everything not specifically forbidden was left to the states. I know of no one who on the left who claims otherwise; but to deny that America's wealth was built on the backs of slaves is sheer semantic sophistry Wilentz is creating a straw man to be knocked down.
31
I am a little perplexed by your last sentence. Are you arguing that "America's wealth" simply consisted of that amassed by the ante-bellum South? In which case that "wealth" was largely destroyed by the Civil War. Or are are you identifying America's wealth with the North or with the post war South, in which case there was no slavery. Sure there was lots of racism, brutality and ugly political and economic manipulation; but that is not the same as state sanctioned slavery.
Not so. Common laws were, common and were usually held so. The federal system allowed states certyain dignities and rights but for the most part, commerce being our middle name, business relations ruled and it was held that common laws served all best. In the early USA, it needs to be remembered, merely being white, 21 and male did not make everyone a voter. Property did. So , property ruled. Sl;avery, though, was the one issue where one man's "property" impinged uon the rights, well being, and freedom of others. It may have taken time, but finally the rights of men held sway over the right to buy and sell people and own them and their progeny, as if they were so many chickens , mules or cows.
That the South insisted on the 3/5ths rule to weight their representation like a giant thumb on a butcher's scale, also may have had more to do with slavery's demise than is thought. It created resentment among many and a barely seen "pinch in the shoe" of federalism, which became ever more irritating , irksome and painfully embarrassing as time passed.
That the South insisted on the 3/5ths rule to weight their representation like a giant thumb on a butcher's scale, also may have had more to do with slavery's demise than is thought. It created resentment among many and a barely seen "pinch in the shoe" of federalism, which became ever more irritating , irksome and painfully embarrassing as time passed.
Wilentz did not deny that "America's wealth etc." That is an economic development that the drafters of the constitution did not and probably could not have foreseen; it was the result of the Industrial Revolution in England and elsewhere.
The writer fails to make his case here, at least as he poses it against Senator Sanders's claim that the country was created with embedded racist principles. Avoiding mentioning slavery in the constitution hardly changes what was happening on the ground - and still does. Slavery was a bedrock institution at our country's founding. The constitution neither improved or disempowered it.
5
Irrespective of what the Constitution says in theory, in practice a hypocritical stance favoring slavery seemed to be the 'law of the land'. This, in a new country based on freedom for all. It goes to tell how brittle our arguments can be in the name of convenience and profit, a reminder that we humans, a mix of goodness and evil, given the right (wrong) circumstances, can do so much harm to others...and even justify it. This, many times, in the name of an all loving God, no less. Now that slavery is gone, and our prejudices subdued due to education and just laws, we are witnessing similar terror processes being carried out in the Middle East (and elsewhere), as if we haven't learned anything. Who are we?
3
straw man argument
4
This is an irresponsible misrepresentation of the racist, proslavery constitution. For a fugitive slave, the fugitive slave clause was hardly passive. Maybe the author thinks the rhetoric was imprecise and defencive: maybe so, but the constitution allowed slaves to be chained to the institution whether in the north or the south.
For a man or woman stuck inside a slave ship in agony and fear: extending the slave trade for even one day is execrable, but less for DECADES. The "compromise" of the 3/5ths clause may have actually advanced Jeffersonian interests in achieving the presidency. Yet for a minority to be counted less than "other" persons of the white race, demonstrates the racist, apartheid nature of the constitution. It was an evil document unworthy of a capital C and unworthy of our support and reverence.
For a man or woman stuck inside a slave ship in agony and fear: extending the slave trade for even one day is execrable, but less for DECADES. The "compromise" of the 3/5ths clause may have actually advanced Jeffersonian interests in achieving the presidency. Yet for a minority to be counted less than "other" persons of the white race, demonstrates the racist, apartheid nature of the constitution. It was an evil document unworthy of a capital C and unworthy of our support and reverence.
5
While I admire Prof Wilentz, this is nonsense. At best it minces words: the Constitution may not have "sanctioned" slavery in the sense of specifically listing property in black humans as a right, but it certainly "tolerated" and even "protected it" by, among other things, insuring the right to the return of fugitives and postponing the ability to Congress to legislative limitations on further importation. Sure, it was a "compromise;" but when you compromise that white voters get three-fifths of a vote for each (non-voting) black person they owned, you're compromising on the basis of a profoundly racist world view that was thereby enshrined in the document. The Founders basically agreed to "kick to can" down the road, apparently in the belief that public opinion was turning against slavery and that it would peter out. Perhaps because the cotton gin made slavery more economically useful, they were wrong. The Dred Scott case (not mentioned by Prof Wilentz) and the War became inevitable. My view: we owe our vision of a just society as much (and possibly more) to the Civil War Amendments than to the Constitution itself.
6
This is a very helpful article. The South Carolina Confederate flag issues generated a lot of discussion of causes of the Civil War, much of it, unfortunately, naive. The Sean Wilentz give us an understanding of 18th and 19th century minds and issues surrounding slavery. Then and now racial justice is more complicated than “good guys in the north wanted freedom, justice and equality for African-Americans and bad guys in the south wanted to stop them.”
1
this is about Clinton and Sanders -- and a dig at the 'left.'
1
What Sanders says in your quote is that the nation was founded on "racist principles." He never says that the Constitution itself authorized slavery, and it is most certainly not a "destructive falsehood" to claim that there is racism in a constitution that starkly differentiates between white and black, including the infamous 3/5 clause, which denied non-whites the vote, and which was structured and written on the assumption that slavery would still exist and continue to be legal. So, while I believe that Mr. Wilentz has some fascinating points to make about the way the Constitution avoided any express endorsement of slavery as an institution. he has overreached by claiming that Sanders was wrong to perceive "racist principles" in the Constitution. I think it's more of a "destructive falsehood" to pretend that the Constitution was entirely neutral on the subject or did not enshrine, if not slavery, at least the racist idea that blacks were not to be treated the same as whites.
11
The 3/5 clause did not deny non-whites, or anyone else the vote. The Constitution as originally written specified only that each state would determine qualifications to vote.
I wish Mr. Wilentz had explained his assertion instead of simply repeating it. I fail to see the difference between enshrining property as a national right and recognizing slavery as a legitimate form of property and simply asserting slavery as a national right. Apparently the Supreme Court felt the same in the Dred Scott case.
4
Only if you accept the reasoning of Justice Taney in Dred Scott--few constitutional law scholars do.
It's nice to see something other then self-righteous indignation espoused at the NYT. After all, constant criticism and put downs only lead to hatred.
2
I agree with a number of the posts here. Wilentz's examples are correct, but his conclusion is questionable.
Certainly, it is important that slavery was not named in the Constitution as a legitimate institution. Over the long haul that absence does matter, a lot.
Still, slavery is there. Few clauses in the original Constitution name specific actions that the national government must do for the states. Two involve slavery. The fugitive slave clause made the return of slaves a responsibility of the federal government. The President's power to intervene to suppress rebellions was aimed in part at cantankerous whites, but it was also aimed at slave rebellions. (FYI: US troops were utilized to help suppress an 1811 slave revolt in Louisiana.)
Finally, the 3/5 clause was a compromise, and many planters disliked it but not all did. That may have been in part due to state-level debates.
Whether to count slaves for the purpose of apportionment was a live issue within slave states as they drew up their constitutions. The debate in those states was less about the existence of slavery than about the balance of power between the wealthy slaveholding whites and the southern white yeomen. Several slave states used the "federal number" as their compromise between elite power and the emerging white democracy.
Certainly, it is important that slavery was not named in the Constitution as a legitimate institution. Over the long haul that absence does matter, a lot.
Still, slavery is there. Few clauses in the original Constitution name specific actions that the national government must do for the states. Two involve slavery. The fugitive slave clause made the return of slaves a responsibility of the federal government. The President's power to intervene to suppress rebellions was aimed in part at cantankerous whites, but it was also aimed at slave rebellions. (FYI: US troops were utilized to help suppress an 1811 slave revolt in Louisiana.)
Finally, the 3/5 clause was a compromise, and many planters disliked it but not all did. That may have been in part due to state-level debates.
Whether to count slaves for the purpose of apportionment was a live issue within slave states as they drew up their constitutions. The debate in those states was less about the existence of slavery than about the balance of power between the wealthy slaveholding whites and the southern white yeomen. Several slave states used the "federal number" as their compromise between elite power and the emerging white democracy.
2
After Lincoln's election, 7 states seceded, not 11. The other 4, VA, NC, TN, and AR were to remain in the Union. VA voted twice to stay. It was Lincoln demand that those 4, as well as the rest of the country, contribute troops to militarily invade those 7 states that pushed out the other 4. They refused to invade a sovereign state that had legally left the Union. Sovereign state. Doesn't mean anything now. Did then.
The other 7 States did not leave the Union legally. In so far as the Constitution is a contract among the States it cannot be altered without the consent of the parties involved. There is no mechanism to secede, the contract would have to be altered to allow it, and that can only be done through a Constitutional Convention (rewrite the whole contract) or the Amendment process (rewrite part of the contract). The South broke the contract and the War brought them back into compliance.
Right. It was all that gorilla Lincoln's fault. Congrats on coming up with an even-more hallucinatory version of history than Wilentz.
A weak argument to claim that racism was not endemic and necessary for the promulgation and growth of slavery, both North and South.
3
That's not the argument. In fact, the op-ed states that a majority of those at the Constitutional Convention considered Africans to be inferior, but did not believe that men could be property and therefore excluded the concept from the document.
Most comments here are missing the point entirely. The seed of slavery's destruction was the failure of pro-slavery framers to enshrine it formally. That is not hair splitting. It's nation splitting.
10
But Wilentz is making this argument in response to a statement by Sanders that the US was in many way founded on 'racism' -- it wasn't a remark about the way the Constitution handled slavery, it was a recognition of the profoundly racist underpinnings of so much of our social, political and economic history.
A rather poorly constructed revision of history. Lincoln ran as a candidate who would not meddle with slave owning states slavery. He continually reiterated that fact in various statements up to the start of the war. His concern was union, and of course his famous letter to Horace Greeley sums his views up:
" As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
You can't separate the slave owning state's votes that founded America from the founding of America. Sanders is correct.
" As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
You can't separate the slave owning state's votes that founded America from the founding of America. Sanders is correct.
6
I'm sorry but the facts that slaves were "3/5s of a person" is in the Constitution and slaves were still considered "property" in free states (The Dredd Scott decision by the Supreme Court) means, Mr. Wilentz, that you are wrong. Don't whitewash our shameful past and now let's work together to put the vestiges of slavery behind us, because we are clearly not there yet.
7
Sean: De jure. It's a legal term. Latin. Look it up.
To paraphrase A Few Good Men, it also doesn't define where the mess halls are, but people still know where to eat.
Thank you for the history lesson, Prof Wilentz - this is an important perspective that should be included in any 18th Century American History class.
But what in the world does an argument over legalistic wording in the Constitution have to do with the institutionalized slavery that did, in fact, exist legally in most of the states after the Constitution was written?
Are you claiming that slavery was not instrumental to our early economic growth as a nation? Or that the inferiority of black Africans was not widely assumed throughout our nation - to the extent that they were denied citizenship and all the rights afforded white Europeans? Racism and ownership of humans may not have been explicitly provided for, but it was certainly implicitly sanctioned in 1787.
THAT, professor, is what Mr Sanders was referring to when he said slavery “in many ways was created, and I’m sorry to have to say this, from way back, on racist principles, that’s a fact.” And it is.
What makes us a nation is not just what lawyers and politicians carefully formulate in order offend as few citizens as possible, including powerful slaveholders and their modern equivalents. What makes us a nation is the reality every human living in the United States faces each morning. And what most African Americans have had to live, and die, with in the United States since 1787 has nothing to do with the argument you present in this op-ed.
But what in the world does an argument over legalistic wording in the Constitution have to do with the institutionalized slavery that did, in fact, exist legally in most of the states after the Constitution was written?
Are you claiming that slavery was not instrumental to our early economic growth as a nation? Or that the inferiority of black Africans was not widely assumed throughout our nation - to the extent that they were denied citizenship and all the rights afforded white Europeans? Racism and ownership of humans may not have been explicitly provided for, but it was certainly implicitly sanctioned in 1787.
THAT, professor, is what Mr Sanders was referring to when he said slavery “in many ways was created, and I’m sorry to have to say this, from way back, on racist principles, that’s a fact.” And it is.
What makes us a nation is not just what lawyers and politicians carefully formulate in order offend as few citizens as possible, including powerful slaveholders and their modern equivalents. What makes us a nation is the reality every human living in the United States faces each morning. And what most African Americans have had to live, and die, with in the United States since 1787 has nothing to do with the argument you present in this op-ed.
14
and the northwest ordinance of 1787 used Federal law to prohibit the expansion of slavery into the Ohio River Valley, clearly showing that the Founders believed anti-slavery laws on the Federal level were legal.
3
This good case would be made stronger by citing Lincoln's Cooper Union speech in February 1860. There the prairie lawyer clinched the argument (and probably secured the Republican nomination) against the Slave Power.
1
Any rights or positions not mentioned or claimed by the federal in the constitution shall be retained by the state , isn't their concept like this?
1
no, civil rights, as enumerated in the amendments, are the responsibility of the national govt. Rights protected by the constitution may not be abridged by any state
Was slavery a constitutional right in the same sense as civilian gun ownership?
1
The answer is in the article. The Constitution does not provide a right to own humans. But the 2nd Amendment does guarantee their right to own firearms.
The Russian Czars were terribly cruel to my great grandparents. I got over it, as did millions of Jews who were: forced into combat and sent to the front lines for slaughter; walled into real ghettoes (with walls, and you can't get out, not a shabby neighborhood "ghetto"); they were forbidden to travel or attend schools; forbidden to do anything but engage in trade, and generally -- formally -- segregated from the rest of society.
Back in that time, the time of slavery and the civil war, there was no electricity, paved roads, cars, phones, planes, washing machines, few railroads, no combustion engines, etc. It's time to get over this. Wilentz says leftists are "justifiably" angry about slavery. No they aren't. IT ended 150 years ago. This country is mired in the myth that this "legacy" has somehow caused our fellow black citizens to be poor, to refuse to marry before having children, to engage in rampant crime.
This has to end. A society evolves and moves on. The US is the only country on this planet where a majority fought to protect and liberate a minority. That is our heritage every bit as much as slavery.
Back in that time, the time of slavery and the civil war, there was no electricity, paved roads, cars, phones, planes, washing machines, few railroads, no combustion engines, etc. It's time to get over this. Wilentz says leftists are "justifiably" angry about slavery. No they aren't. IT ended 150 years ago. This country is mired in the myth that this "legacy" has somehow caused our fellow black citizens to be poor, to refuse to marry before having children, to engage in rampant crime.
This has to end. A society evolves and moves on. The US is the only country on this planet where a majority fought to protect and liberate a minority. That is our heritage every bit as much as slavery.
4
Slavery may have ended but Jim Crow marched on - and is still dominant in the lives of black Americans. Do you like it when people tell you to "just get over" the Holocaust?
Officially, slavery did end 150 years ago. But that's a far cry from asserting that since then, African-Americans have enjoyed the same political and economic rights as white Americans. As you must know, many whites in both the south and the north instituted many barriers, some obvious, others implicit (where blacks could buy houses, for example), that have prevented blacks from enjoying the same standard of living as whites.
Also, economic justice affects both blacks and whites. You're right. This has to end. It is time for the fortunate few to acknowledge their debt to society and to do what they can to help transform America into a place where, black or white, every American truly has a fair and equal chance for success.
Also, economic justice affects both blacks and whites. You're right. This has to end. It is time for the fortunate few to acknowledge their debt to society and to do what they can to help transform America into a place where, black or white, every American truly has a fair and equal chance for success.
" This country is mired in the myth that this "legacy" has somehow caused our fellow black citizens to be poor, to refuse to marry before having children, to engage in rampant crime."
As I read the obituaries daily I have noticed that the very old Black persons ( most are women) spent their entire lives working the most menial jobs, cleaners, laundresses and Nannies. They were married for life to one person and the sons have the same last name as their fathers. They were church deacons and deaconesses.
What happened?
What happened was welfare programs that made it difficult for a man to live in the same home as his wife and children, that provided benefit after benefit that reduced the need to work and go to school. A lack of men in the homes produced generations of young men with no idea of how to be a man, daughters who craved attention from men who disrespected them.
Liberals need to look closer to home to see what destroyed the Black community. Start with LBJ and work forward.
As I read the obituaries daily I have noticed that the very old Black persons ( most are women) spent their entire lives working the most menial jobs, cleaners, laundresses and Nannies. They were married for life to one person and the sons have the same last name as their fathers. They were church deacons and deaconesses.
What happened?
What happened was welfare programs that made it difficult for a man to live in the same home as his wife and children, that provided benefit after benefit that reduced the need to work and go to school. A lack of men in the homes produced generations of young men with no idea of how to be a man, daughters who craved attention from men who disrespected them.
Liberals need to look closer to home to see what destroyed the Black community. Start with LBJ and work forward.
The Constitution of the Confederate States is similar to the US Constitution, except that it does explicitly deal with slavery, and even makes every additition of territory to the Confederacy a place where slavery would be the law.
Compare the two documents, and you will see what the slaveholders in 1787 must have been looking for, and did not get.
As far as "states' rights" goes, there is no mention of "states' rights" in the Confederate Constitution, but there is a Supremacy Clause, which parallels the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. Since the slaveholders agreed to a Supremacy Clause, states' rights could not have been a very important issue.
Compare the two documents, and you will see what the slaveholders in 1787 must have been looking for, and did not get.
As far as "states' rights" goes, there is no mention of "states' rights" in the Confederate Constitution, but there is a Supremacy Clause, which parallels the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. Since the slaveholders agreed to a Supremacy Clause, states' rights could not have been a very important issue.
3
Just saying stuff. The Confederate Constitution went all out to prevent national power. Kinda a states right issue. And it is OBVIOUS.
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation, in all which cases, such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby, as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.[12]
Article I, Section 9(9)
Congress shall appropriate no money from the treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of Department, and submitted to Congress by the President...
Article I, Section 9(10)
All bills appropriating money shall specify in federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made...
In 1861 the issue of hobbling the national government, important enough to pad the document--these are like essays stuck in a stripped down constitution. in 2015, I KNOW THE TRUTH OF 1861! Nothing to do with State's rights.
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation, in all which cases, such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby, as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.[12]
Article I, Section 9(9)
Congress shall appropriate no money from the treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of Department, and submitted to Congress by the President...
Article I, Section 9(10)
All bills appropriating money shall specify in federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made...
In 1861 the issue of hobbling the national government, important enough to pad the document--these are like essays stuck in a stripped down constitution. in 2015, I KNOW THE TRUTH OF 1861! Nothing to do with State's rights.
Sophistry at the highest level. The nation was founded with legalization of slavery period. Just because the pro-abolitionist movement prevented the enshrinement of some principles of slavery in the Constitution does not negate that fact. Slavery was recognized as legal and remained legal until the Civil War.
Mr. Wilentz can spin and distort, but facts are stubborn things. Yes, this country was founded upon racist behavior, principles, and laws.
Mr. Wilentz can spin and distort, but facts are stubborn things. Yes, this country was founded upon racist behavior, principles, and laws.
8
“They finally conceded to the three-fifths compromise…”
Yes, but they ALL conceded to it. You're arguing as if the compromises the North was willing to make to keep the South in the Union were only comments on the inadequacies of the pro-slavery forces. The fact the North was willing to accept a region of the world that practiced slavery into its union, and was willing to acknowledge the legality of the institution of slavery in the Constitution, is sufficient to defend the idea that the United States was founded on "racist principles"—indeed upon a racist and heinous compromise to accept those principles as tolerable in order to satisfy pro-slavery states.
Yes, but they ALL conceded to it. You're arguing as if the compromises the North was willing to make to keep the South in the Union were only comments on the inadequacies of the pro-slavery forces. The fact the North was willing to accept a region of the world that practiced slavery into its union, and was willing to acknowledge the legality of the institution of slavery in the Constitution, is sufficient to defend the idea that the United States was founded on "racist principles"—indeed upon a racist and heinous compromise to accept those principles as tolerable in order to satisfy pro-slavery states.
6
Using the constitution to prove your argument leaves you on shaky ground. There are arguments before the supreme court all the time, trying to understand the constitution. And by your own admission the three-fifths compromise enabled the plantation owners to gain more power. And let's face it, even the first ships to land on our shores brought slaves with them and the whites tried to enslave the native americans. So slavery was a pretty popular idea among our first settlers and that popularity lasted many years. Slavery was even popular (in a way) for the "Northern" abolitionists who built ships to transport cotton, or made factories to convert that cotton into cloth. Even the banks created ways to sell bonds that were backed by the value in slaves, much like the mortgage bundling done not that long ago.
I think a more relevant question for our world today is, does slavery still exist in our country, certainly not in name, but in deed? Jim Crow laws certainly allowed the whites to control the ex-slave in ways that were probably as effective as the whip. The fight to keep minimum wage low or to get rid of minimum wage helps keep many people under control of the "monied folks", so is that the new slavery?
I think a more relevant question for our world today is, does slavery still exist in our country, certainly not in name, but in deed? Jim Crow laws certainly allowed the whites to control the ex-slave in ways that were probably as effective as the whip. The fight to keep minimum wage low or to get rid of minimum wage helps keep many people under control of the "monied folks", so is that the new slavery?
7
If the constitution did not sanction the federal government's protection of slavery, why then did George Washington sign the first Fugitive Slave Law on 12 February 1793? The federal government did protect slavery, although not as vigorously as many southerners wished; hence, the Compromise of 1850. Was slavery enshrined in the Constitution, no. But the Constitution did protect it until the passage of the 13th Amendment.
Second, let's not over emphasize Northern opposition to slavery. Slave-produced good counted for a large majority of US exports, particularly after the cotton boom of the 1820s and 30s. Northerners were deeply invested in the plantation south. Northern factory workers feared the influx of former slaves from the south. As you well know, until 1850, most northerners took a NMBY approach to slavery. We cannot forget the riots against abolitionists of the 1830s.
Second, let's not over emphasize Northern opposition to slavery. Slave-produced good counted for a large majority of US exports, particularly after the cotton boom of the 1820s and 30s. Northerners were deeply invested in the plantation south. Northern factory workers feared the influx of former slaves from the south. As you well know, until 1850, most northerners took a NMBY approach to slavery. We cannot forget the riots against abolitionists of the 1830s.
5
Almost all the ships that transported slaves to the US came out of New England. It was part of a triad of trade that consisted of sugar, slaves and rum.
Providence Rhode Island was the home of the biggest slavers in the country.
Providence Rhode Island was the home of the biggest slavers in the country.
The reason some of the pro-slavery delegates wanted slaves to be counted as full persons is that it would have given them more delegates and therefore more power in the House and Congress. The slaves themselves, of course, would not have a vote. Not a single one. Surely the writer knows this but chooses to spin the "three-fifths" clause as something other than what it is.
As for Bernie, he speaks the truth when he says the U.S. was founded on racist principles. He speaks not merely of legalistic principles enshrined in our founding documents, he speaks also of morality, and economics, and of the millions and millions and million of unpaid man-hours, without which this country, but especially the South, would not have developed a fraction of the wealth it did. It's only necessary to look at the South of today and compare it to the pre-Civil War South to see that its wealth was due almost entirely to slave labor, and without that, it still hasn't recovered.
As for Bernie, he speaks the truth when he says the U.S. was founded on racist principles. He speaks not merely of legalistic principles enshrined in our founding documents, he speaks also of morality, and economics, and of the millions and millions and million of unpaid man-hours, without which this country, but especially the South, would not have developed a fraction of the wealth it did. It's only necessary to look at the South of today and compare it to the pre-Civil War South to see that its wealth was due almost entirely to slave labor, and without that, it still hasn't recovered.
8
". It's only necessary to look at the South of today and compare it to the pre-Civil War South to see that its wealth was due almost entirely to slave labor, and without that, it still hasn't recovered."
You obviously don't get here very much. If you did you'd see some of the wealthiest people in the country living here as well as the people from your own state which has one of the largest exodus in the country.
You obviously don't get here very much. If you did you'd see some of the wealthiest people in the country living here as well as the people from your own state which has one of the largest exodus in the country.
Constitutionally, slavery is no national institution.
Actually (i.e. in reality) slavery was a national institution, from the southern plantations, to the the northern bankers it created a dominance in the world cotton market that led to the emergence of the indispensable nation
Actually (i.e. in reality) slavery was a national institution, from the southern plantations, to the the northern bankers it created a dominance in the world cotton market that led to the emergence of the indispensable nation
8
The author should have discussed the origin of the Second Amendment. The purpose of it and its strange wording was so that the States can maintain their slave patrols without interference from the Federal government. For example see the article "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment," by Law Professor Carl T. Bogus.
7
Except that we have many written statements by the founders that clearly state that the 2nd Amendment was for the protection of the people form their government. For an excellent explanation of the purpose of the militias see Federalist Papers #46 where the writer states that a militia of the people would overpower the federal government just as it did in it battle with Great Britain. The Federalist had a true fear of a powerful federal government taking over the powers of the states.
Professor Bogus? Unless this is a joke, Prof. Bogus is aptly named. The origin of the Second Amendment is found in English common law derived from ancient Saxon law which goes back at least a millennium before the Constitution was even written.
I have no idea where your conjecture comes from except perhaps a fertile imagination.
I would refer you to the Federalist Papers in particular Paper #46 which clearly states the purpose for the 2nd Amendment.
For those unaware of the Federalist Papers it is an apologetic written to convince the states to ratify the Constitution. It's well worth the read to see what was the mind set of the people at that time. It counters the statement made by a chief justice of the Supreme Court that we have no idea what was in the minds of the founders.
I would refer you to the Federalist Papers in particular Paper #46 which clearly states the purpose for the 2nd Amendment.
For those unaware of the Federalist Papers it is an apologetic written to convince the states to ratify the Constitution. It's well worth the read to see what was the mind set of the people at that time. It counters the statement made by a chief justice of the Supreme Court that we have no idea what was in the minds of the founders.
It is the old "half full, half empty" debate.
Yes, the anti-slavery Framers could have gotten stronger language against slavery. And yes, the pro-slavery Framers could have gotten slavery protected as a constitutional right.
But neither got all they wanted.
They had to deal with the reality they had to get the Constitution signed.
Yes, the anti-slavery Framers could have gotten stronger language against slavery. And yes, the pro-slavery Framers could have gotten slavery protected as a constitutional right.
But neither got all they wanted.
They had to deal with the reality they had to get the Constitution signed.
4
the glass is neither half empty nor half full.
the glass is too large
the glass is too large
Whatever the Constitution did or didn't say about slavery, it was an institution of enormous significance in the South, and its end was accomplished not by legislative means but by war.
5
It was always a myth that Southern planters were naive to the horrors and illogic of slavery. In one of the most glaring examples was the famous Presbyterian minister, CC Jones, who wrote "The Religious Education of the Negro". Likewise, RE Lee was fully indoctrinated to the evils and horror of slavery but choose to milk the good life of the plantation system through marriage. The Rev. CC Jones, educated in the North likewise selected marriage into the Coastal Georgia plantation system (and corresponding wealth and power) and openly endorsed human bondage. There were no Southern gentlemen then because they were all evil, selfish killers of bonded humans.
1
After reading this article, I'm reminded of the saying, "Straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel."
Mr Sanders did not say, "Based on detailed research surrounding the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the US is based on racist principles."
He stated the simple fact that the founding of the US was IN FACT based on racist principles, regardless of the fact that there were a few good men who tried to downplay slavery and realized, unlike many in the South, that slavery was an unjust and unsustainable institution.
For Mr Sanders, it's DE FACTO. For Mr Wilentz, it's DE JURE. Unfortunately for blacks, they had to live with the DE FACTO part and in many cases still do.
Mr Sanders did not say, "Based on detailed research surrounding the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the US is based on racist principles."
He stated the simple fact that the founding of the US was IN FACT based on racist principles, regardless of the fact that there were a few good men who tried to downplay slavery and realized, unlike many in the South, that slavery was an unjust and unsustainable institution.
For Mr Sanders, it's DE FACTO. For Mr Wilentz, it's DE JURE. Unfortunately for blacks, they had to live with the DE FACTO part and in many cases still do.
22
While the professor accurately describes major parts of the Convention debate, I hardly believe that refutes the belief expressed by Sanders. Slavery was tolerated by the Constitution in acompromise. Lincoln believed that it was protected but he was anxious that it not be allowed to spread first to new territories that became states . He was alarmed by the Dred Scott decision because it allowed slaveowners to retain their property in slaves after bringing them into states that prohibited slavery.
8
No one today in the United States owns a slave. No one alive today has a parent or a grandparent who ever owned a slave - not that anyone alive today is legally or responsible for anything that their parents or grandparents did during THEIR lifetimes.
The concept of blaming today's generation (the vast majority of whose ancestors were NOT owners of plantations) for acts and/or omissions is deeply flawed.
The concept of blaming today's generation (the vast majority of whose ancestors were NOT owners of plantations) for acts and/or omissions is deeply flawed.
5
This is a tired, deeply flawed argument. When one accepts membership in a club, one is essentially underwriting the traditions, institutions and even the history of the organization. New immigrants and others who hold that they have "clean hands" merely because they never directly owned slaves attempt to divert their responsibility for actions that continue to this day to affect the lives of millions of Americans. Although the writer tends to downplay the so-called 3/5ths compromise, the fact that the wording has been allowed to remain in our founding document is yet another indication that the nation--even now, after a civil war, sabotaged reconstruction, and the institution of segregationist, apartheid policies--is still not ready to acknowledge our ongoing debt to the millions of African-Americans who quite literally built the early nation.
1
Re: Alex South Lancaster Ontario
How is it we can claim credit for our attributes of good works as a nation, but not its deficiencies? Doesn't the son inherit the father's whole estates; assets and liabilities? A nation unlike a business moves in continuum, as an example policies of one president affects the next and so it is with sins of the father has its future reconciliation.
How is it we can claim credit for our attributes of good works as a nation, but not its deficiencies? Doesn't the son inherit the father's whole estates; assets and liabilities? A nation unlike a business moves in continuum, as an example policies of one president affects the next and so it is with sins of the father has its future reconciliation.
1
But all of our parents were alive during the Jim Crow era, and few, if any, did anything about it. You're pretty quiet about that propensity of "The Greatest Generation", aren't you?
"Most of the framers expected slavery to gradually wither away."
For 50 of the first 60 years of America's founding, the president was a slaveholder. Apparently what these (mostly southern) men, and the southern framers of the Constitution "expected" was much different from what they practiced.
For 50 of the first 60 years of America's founding, the president was a slaveholder. Apparently what these (mostly southern) men, and the southern framers of the Constitution "expected" was much different from what they practiced.
13
The comments are often depressing and here certainly are.
An american who thinks the national versus state issue is irrelevant has announced their ignorance of, and disdain for basic american history and constitutional structure as they are morally superior persons who knows of america's evil, superior because they trumpet that evil, in ignorance. But, what is depressing, is that like RW nuts, they are proud and defiant, and wilfully clueless about their ignorance. Me me me, absurdly contingent, inherently unreliable, and skepticism free, 2015 me, is the sum of their truth and of current american civics.
An american who thinks the national versus state issue is irrelevant has announced their ignorance of, and disdain for basic american history and constitutional structure as they are morally superior persons who knows of america's evil, superior because they trumpet that evil, in ignorance. But, what is depressing, is that like RW nuts, they are proud and defiant, and wilfully clueless about their ignorance. Me me me, absurdly contingent, inherently unreliable, and skepticism free, 2015 me, is the sum of their truth and of current american civics.
1
The Constitution did not use the word "slaves" or "slavery" so it could not have overtly created a national institution (the 3/5th clause does refer to slavery), Instead, the framers created a federal government with limited, enumerated powers, and gave Congress no express power to outlaw slavery where it existed. If one adds the 5th Amendment's protection of property, a formidable Southern firewall protecting slavery was created. The South seceded because of their unreasonable belief that the national government would eventually outlaw slavery, but that would have been decades in the future, given slaves were property protected by the due process clause.
26
Both the Constitution and the country when it was written were partly pro-slavery and partly anti-slavery: a compromise between free and slave states. The 3/5 rule for counting slaves in the census gave more power in the House of Representatives to slave states. Both sides knew by counting the numbers of "slave" and "free" states that the Senate would be approximately balanced and (in fact) "slave" and "free" states were admitted together into the union to preserve this balance. Thus the constitution made it hard to abolish slavery by law. But, even if the constitution made it hard to abolish slavery by law, it did not explicitly allow slavery. And, of course the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments are rather explicitly antislavery.
Only the subsequent Civil War, finally resolved this issue. Likely, if either pro or anti slavery framers had insisted on making the original constitution unambiguous the union would not have formed. Ambiguity allowed the formation of the union. The Civil War which resulted from that ambiguity abolished slavery throughout the union. Lincoln, then, proved himself correct by winning the Civil War.
Only the subsequent Civil War, finally resolved this issue. Likely, if either pro or anti slavery framers had insisted on making the original constitution unambiguous the union would not have formed. Ambiguity allowed the formation of the union. The Civil War which resulted from that ambiguity abolished slavery throughout the union. Lincoln, then, proved himself correct by winning the Civil War.
44
Eight of the original 13 states were slave states. Rhode Island abolish slavery in 1774, Vermont in 1777, Pennsylvania in 1780, Massachusetts in 1781, New Hampshire in 1783 and Connecticut in 1784, but slavery was still legal in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia at the time the Constitution was signed in 1787. So, 16 senators represented slave states while 10 represented free states.
The idealism of the constitution masked the practical outworking of slavery. For the constitution to be intellectually honest it would had to legalize slavery, and the argument of this article would not exist. But alas the constitution was not intellectually honest. It took almost 200 years to correct its contradictions in writing, but the work to fix the practical outworking continues. This fix is found in the heart of people.
1
Too bad that we didn't have instant communication, outsourcing, and huge delivery vessels in the early history of this country. That way we could have avoided the slavery "problem," and shipped those issues overseas.
Is it really any different now? Our economy depends upon "cheap" labor around the globe. We enable slavery everyday, just calling it something different.
Is it really any different now? Our economy depends upon "cheap" labor around the globe. We enable slavery everyday, just calling it something different.
6
This has to be one of the most disingenuous revisionist histories I have ever read. That Lincoln and Douglass advanced a Constitutional argument, and one that was settled in blood and not in any Court, says next to nothing about the Constitution as ratified by those who did. No more than arguing against Mr. Wilentz means one is somehow caught out holding Calhoun's position, in its full racism, to be simply true of the Constitution as variously understood and argued over by the so called "Founding Fathers," who were a pretty contentious bunch. One is asked to believe, in consequence, though not said directly, that the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution by the Civil War generation were frivolous, unnecessary amendments to a Constitution just misunderstood. This is nothing but a fairly transparent effort to whitewash the more monumental parts of America's history with a too-cute-by-half, completely and, one hopes. knowingly fallacious argument.
14
@labarguen While your point is well taken and Mr. Wilentz might have over-simplified the intentions of the founding fathers, I don't think this is revisionist history. Empirically, the fact remains that the Constitution did not institutionalize slavery on a national basis. But it took the Civil War and 3 constitutional amendments to enforce this non-institutionalization.
But the constitutional structure, including the electoral college, senate, and other institutions strongly reflected the slave interests, didn't they?
3
Scholars and activists on the left would have mentioned the Dred Scott decision of 1857
3
For another treatment of the important argument discussed here by Wilentz, see Freedom National by James Oakes.
2
The 3/5's compromise clearly indicates that the Constitution recognized slavery as a legal institution within the United States and was recognized as such by the federal government along with state governments.
Also, slavery certainly existed outside "the South".
Slavery was not abolished in New York until 1827.
What the Constitution did not address was its expansion into the new territories which was the reason the Republican party was formed in the first place.
That can was kicked down the road for ~ 70 years and led to the Civil War.
Lincoln himself , though opposed to slavery in principle, was politically and legally opposed to its expansion and ran on that platform in 1860 - he was not a hard core abolitionist.
Also, slavery certainly existed outside "the South".
Slavery was not abolished in New York until 1827.
What the Constitution did not address was its expansion into the new territories which was the reason the Republican party was formed in the first place.
That can was kicked down the road for ~ 70 years and led to the Civil War.
Lincoln himself , though opposed to slavery in principle, was politically and legally opposed to its expansion and ran on that platform in 1860 - he was not a hard core abolitionist.
9
Please stop with the slavery. It happened all over the World and it is over and has been since the Civil War in our country at least. A Republican President freed the slaves and held the Union together at the same time although you would never know it the way the left demonizes the GOP as an enemy of the Black's. No White person alive today in the US has ever owned a slave and there aren't any Black people alive who were ever slaves as well. let it go. It is history just like everything else at this point. As Hillary would say, "What difference at this point does it make"?
2
You need to review history: Today's GOP is not the same party as it was in Lincoln's time.
There is in fact a reason that today's GOP is, as you say, demonized - all you have to do is look at the policies they now hold dear and the manner in which they've gone about to enact them. Gerrymandering to insure single party rule within voter districts? Voter suppression disguised as voter protection?
Certainly not the party of freedom...
There is in fact a reason that today's GOP is, as you say, demonized - all you have to do is look at the policies they now hold dear and the manner in which they've gone about to enact them. Gerrymandering to insure single party rule within voter districts? Voter suppression disguised as voter protection?
Certainly not the party of freedom...
You'd best ask that to the black folks still being victimized by white cops, employers, school boards, etc., etc.
Thank you for this clear explanation. Members of the Constitutional Convention fought hard against the proslavery element. They tried to protect our country from enshrining slavery as a national institution. There was a fierce debate and some compromise was made but in the end our forefathers established a nation that was able to rally for the Civil War.
The slaves were finally freed and America celebrated!
In Africa, the slaves are still in chains.
Now it is up to the American Blacks to own their freedom, not by fighting with white people but by succeeding in our society.
The slaves were finally freed and America celebrated!
In Africa, the slaves are still in chains.
Now it is up to the American Blacks to own their freedom, not by fighting with white people but by succeeding in our society.
3
Fighting with white people is the way today's blacks will succeed in society. It is the descendants of the white people who Lincoln refused to hang as traitors that are carrying on the same racists insanity of the Confederacy. The only difference between now and Jim Crow days is they don't wear sheets -- they hang out on the internet.
Thank you for a fact-laden analysis of the Founding Father's approach to slavery. Of course, the liberal readers of the NY Times will not let any inconvenient facts disrupt their ideological delusions. Even though the United States of America came into existence in a land already benighted by slavery by the British, it began rejecting slavery as an institution almost immediately. Liberals seem incapable of appreciating the complexities associated with the issue of slavery that early Americans faced. While American Leaders, even as far south as Virginia, believed that slavery was wrong and needed to end, how to do so without totally disrupting society was a difficult matter. Furthermore, they could not foresee the impact of cotton gin in perpetuating slavery. In 1776, they reasonably that they were consigning American slavery to the dustbin of history. Ultimately, over 350,000 Americans (overwhelmingly white) gave their lives to free the slaves. This sacrifice for the welfare of others is unparalleled in the history of the world, and has become the hallmark of the American soldier.
45
@Charles
Tecumseh, Michigan
Er...and the 300,000 Americans that died to keep blacks enslaved? And the 11 million Russians, 420,000 Americans and 450,000 Brits who died to defeat Nazism don't count?
Tecumseh, Michigan
Er...and the 300,000 Americans that died to keep blacks enslaved? And the 11 million Russians, 420,000 Americans and 450,000 Brits who died to defeat Nazism don't count?
3
During 4+ brief years Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis managed to kill 750,000 of the other sides people. In a nation with a tenth of the current population more Americans died than in all other American wars combined. Black African Americans who were denied their humanity fought, died and bled for their liberation in the Civil War.
The war was about maintaining the union of slave and non-slave states" by any means necessary." In his Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln noted and lamented that God apparently only answered the prayers of the enslaved Africans. Instead of the prayers of either the rebels or the union. The war was God's divine bloody judgment against both sides.
You apparently have never heard of nor read about the Reconstruction, Jim Crow and Civil Rights eras.
Alexander Hamilton was the greatest America Founding Father. Followed by John Brown.
The war was about maintaining the union of slave and non-slave states" by any means necessary." In his Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln noted and lamented that God apparently only answered the prayers of the enslaved Africans. Instead of the prayers of either the rebels or the union. The war was God's divine bloody judgment against both sides.
You apparently have never heard of nor read about the Reconstruction, Jim Crow and Civil Rights eras.
Alexander Hamilton was the greatest America Founding Father. Followed by John Brown.
1
What is this nonsense about liberals being "incapable of appreciate the complexities" of slavery? Much like abolitionists of the time, liberals often view slavery as a per se evil, and refuse it as a system upon which to build a moral, legitimate government; this much is true. However, to claim that we somehow cannot understand the delicate considerations that went into preserving slavery through the constitution is patently false, and the suggestion is not worthy of a response.
Furthermore, the claim that every Union soldier fought solely to eliminate slavery is to vastly misunderstand history. The Civil War was fought first and foremost to preserve the Union. The slave states of Kentucky and Maryland, for instance, contributed their young men to the Union. The quest to abolish slavery only became a true goal of the war years after it first broke out. The cause those soldiers fought and died for was to preserve the United States as an indivisible whole - the same goal that drives soldiers to this day.
Furthermore, the claim that every Union soldier fought solely to eliminate slavery is to vastly misunderstand history. The Civil War was fought first and foremost to preserve the Union. The slave states of Kentucky and Maryland, for instance, contributed their young men to the Union. The quest to abolish slavery only became a true goal of the war years after it first broke out. The cause those soldiers fought and died for was to preserve the United States as an indivisible whole - the same goal that drives soldiers to this day.
2
". . .claiming that, with the fugitive servant clause, the Constitution actually established slaves as property in national law."
"Servant" here is used synonymously with "slaves." Indentured servants, depending on individual status such as criminal or vagabond, were treated as slaves and included both blacks and whites, especially Irish Catholics. Today, slavery is treated as a racial issue, but white slavery was prevalent in all parts of the New World, including the British colonies in North America.
"Servant" here is used synonymously with "slaves." Indentured servants, depending on individual status such as criminal or vagabond, were treated as slaves and included both blacks and whites, especially Irish Catholics. Today, slavery is treated as a racial issue, but white slavery was prevalent in all parts of the New World, including the British colonies in North America.
5
Obviously the Constitution embodied many compromises and one of these was the 3/5 rule, which gave more political power to the slave states, based on the ownership of people who could not vote themselves. It is absurd to deny that slavery was part of the Constitution, and that this affected the political and social balance until the 13th and 14th Amendments.
12
The 13th amendment ended slavery in the states and the 14th amendment finally gave the federal government the power to protect all citizens from intrusions on their rights by state governments. Neither implies that slavery was a national institution or enshrined in the constitution.
The Constitution represented a certificate codifying a messy marriage of 13 original partners. Some partners demanded servants with their living and future provided on the backs of others' labor; other partners objected, but recognized that there would be no marriage if the certificate codified their outright objections. The compromise was an implicit prenuptial disagreement that was not codified in the certificate; it allowed room for all partners to interpret their marriage to their own design and like any marriage where one partner believes another partner will change, it has led to later turmoil.
Racism predated the U.S. marriage. Racism continued after the marriage. Racism was a contentious issue which one may argue was not codified, but nonetheless, it would be wrong to claim that racism was not in our American roots.
Racism predated the U.S. marriage. Racism continued after the marriage. Racism was a contentious issue which one may argue was not codified, but nonetheless, it would be wrong to claim that racism was not in our American roots.
3
This article strikes me as making a lot of a distinction without a difference. The distinction of whether slavery was a "national institution" or simply a nearly nationwide state institution makes no difference today.
Today we are tasked with the question of whether we need to take a hard look at how our structures perpetuate the subordination and oppression of people of color. I think we do and that's why I support and am allied with the Black Lives Matter movement, such as it is. Redlining by the federal housing authority was real. Limited access to the GI bill for blacks was real. Funding secondary education on the basis of local ability is real. All are relevant national issues regarding the perpetuation of racial subordination.
The acts by some to "get educated" about race feel like a smokescreen for sticking with the status quo. This article is of that ilk.
Today we are tasked with the question of whether we need to take a hard look at how our structures perpetuate the subordination and oppression of people of color. I think we do and that's why I support and am allied with the Black Lives Matter movement, such as it is. Redlining by the federal housing authority was real. Limited access to the GI bill for blacks was real. Funding secondary education on the basis of local ability is real. All are relevant national issues regarding the perpetuation of racial subordination.
The acts by some to "get educated" about race feel like a smokescreen for sticking with the status quo. This article is of that ilk.
1
As much as I admire Sean Wilentz much of this is wishful thinking. For example, while Madison's efforts as described by Wilenz are true, at the same time he was a slave owner who kept and owned slaves in the White House as president. And let's not forget that the original constitution did have a fugitive slave clause.
We should try to look at our history fairly. Let's look beyond the Constitution, which is just a document after all. It's clear that the southern states would not have joined the revolution unless slavery was preserved, that was the implicit promise made to them. In fact, many southerners joined the revolution precisely to maintain their property in slaves. And the key founding fathers were slave owners.
More importantly, by 1850 cotton production represented two thirds of all US exports; and, cotton from the US South constituted two thirds of all world cotton production. Cotton was the raw material for the textile boom in New England. Our entire economy depended upon cotton produced by slaves.
It is not an exaggeration to say that this country was founded upon slavery. We must recognize this. I'm sorry to say that Sean Wilentz has contributed to the continued denial.
We should try to look at our history fairly. Let's look beyond the Constitution, which is just a document after all. It's clear that the southern states would not have joined the revolution unless slavery was preserved, that was the implicit promise made to them. In fact, many southerners joined the revolution precisely to maintain their property in slaves. And the key founding fathers were slave owners.
More importantly, by 1850 cotton production represented two thirds of all US exports; and, cotton from the US South constituted two thirds of all world cotton production. Cotton was the raw material for the textile boom in New England. Our entire economy depended upon cotton produced by slaves.
It is not an exaggeration to say that this country was founded upon slavery. We must recognize this. I'm sorry to say that Sean Wilentz has contributed to the continued denial.
1
Mr. Wilentz makes plenty of good points about what is explicit in the constitution. Too bad that for most people, reality does not reflect the lofty ideals of our nation. Slavery is mentioned in the Constitution, and was legal in Northern as well as all Southern states. Lawyers love technical legal reasoning, but I find that practical citizens chafe at the nonsense. Commenter felecha makes a good point: we have some very ugly parts to our history, but as a nation we keep making progress. That is little consolation for those who are marginalized and have suffered. We should not give up, and we should not stop working for a more perfect country. We like to pretend we live in a country of equality, but the rights and ideals of this great nation have always been given to some, and denied to many, regardless of what the constitution says. I would point to the idealism of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as strong arguments for the basis of further progress (never mind common sense), but we still need to look open-eyed at the realities of people's lives and the way citizens and organizations have behaved and treated one another for guidance on what is our character. Mr. Wilentz, you'd be better off acknowledging that we don't have slavery in this country not because it wasn't explicitly sanctioned in the Constitution, but because we fought a horrible Civil War over the issue, and the president that led the North to victory trampled the constitution to do so.
The fact that the word "slavery" does not appear in the constitution is irrelevant from a de facto application of political power in this country.
Most of the northern delegates at the Convention, and some Virginians opposed the institution and considered the use of the word "slavery" to debase the document lauding the inalienable rights of man. Virtually none of the attendants were enlightened as to the basic human qualities of the slaves, but all recognized chattel slavery as a mockery of their constitution.
They chose to use words other than "slavery" to recognize the institution. That's all.
No, the nation was not founded on the principle that slavery was right and just.
Yes, the nation was founded on the principle that compromising with the south to permit the continued use of slavery was worth the political cost of keeping the colonies united as one union.
Far from being a political defeat for the south, the 3/5 and related clauses cemented the south's political dominance of the newly formed union for the next 40 years. It gave the south more congressional representation and hence more votes than their population warranted. This resulted in more slave-owning southerners becoming president and more slave-owning southerners serving on the SCOTUS than northerners.
The civil war was fought over the south's determination to expand slavery into the western territories and by that action, maintain both their political clout and their "peculiar" way of life.
Most of the northern delegates at the Convention, and some Virginians opposed the institution and considered the use of the word "slavery" to debase the document lauding the inalienable rights of man. Virtually none of the attendants were enlightened as to the basic human qualities of the slaves, but all recognized chattel slavery as a mockery of their constitution.
They chose to use words other than "slavery" to recognize the institution. That's all.
No, the nation was not founded on the principle that slavery was right and just.
Yes, the nation was founded on the principle that compromising with the south to permit the continued use of slavery was worth the political cost of keeping the colonies united as one union.
Far from being a political defeat for the south, the 3/5 and related clauses cemented the south's political dominance of the newly formed union for the next 40 years. It gave the south more congressional representation and hence more votes than their population warranted. This resulted in more slave-owning southerners becoming president and more slave-owning southerners serving on the SCOTUS than northerners.
The civil war was fought over the south's determination to expand slavery into the western territories and by that action, maintain both their political clout and their "peculiar" way of life.
This strikes me as a reach. Yes, the Northern delegates were reticent to formally endorse slavery, as the essay points out, because many of them hoped it would go away on its own in time. But it didn't condemn it either, specifically to appease the Southern delegates whose votes were needed in order to complete the task at hand.
One can make the case that this was a necessary compromise, since the confederation was imploding after only a few years (something lost on today's "strict Constitutionalists" who like to pretend the Constitution was intended to produce a passive federal government, when in fact that's exactly the problem that made it necessary). But it still wove at least a tolerance for slavery into the fabric of the convention's output, thus making the original Constitution (at least until the Reconstruction amendments) at least complicit in the persistence of slavery.
One can make the case that this was a necessary compromise, since the confederation was imploding after only a few years (something lost on today's "strict Constitutionalists" who like to pretend the Constitution was intended to produce a passive federal government, when in fact that's exactly the problem that made it necessary). But it still wove at least a tolerance for slavery into the fabric of the convention's output, thus making the original Constitution (at least until the Reconstruction amendments) at least complicit in the persistence of slavery.
1
Its sad how many people seem so bent on finding fault with history, looking at times past from our more "enlightened" position today (the caveat of course being that what we think of today as so advanced and progressive may well scoffed at by future generations with a "what were they thinking" view as well).
In the world of the mid-18th century the concepts of the Declaration of Independence and the structures and ideals embodied in the Constitution were seminal documents in history, with a pretty radical revision of where the people stood in their place against the powers of government, monarchy, etc. Perfect, perhaps not, created by perfect men, perhaps not, but still a breath of fresh air the world had never seen before. Not mere theory or scholarly writing but the practical application of ideals still true today.
The original Articles of Confederation, so forgotten today, were far more imperfect and needed badly to be replaced. The Framers were, if nothing else, practical men, and recognized that the new document went much farther in ensuring the continuation of this noble ideal, far from a foregone conclusion at the time. Were compromises made? Yes, and perhaps they could have been more articulate, but to pretend from our present position that it is "fundamentally flawed" is to deny history and the huge sea change this represented.
Why can't people acknowledge both? Why must we "condemn" rather than praise while recognizing the work that was left to be done?
In the world of the mid-18th century the concepts of the Declaration of Independence and the structures and ideals embodied in the Constitution were seminal documents in history, with a pretty radical revision of where the people stood in their place against the powers of government, monarchy, etc. Perfect, perhaps not, created by perfect men, perhaps not, but still a breath of fresh air the world had never seen before. Not mere theory or scholarly writing but the practical application of ideals still true today.
The original Articles of Confederation, so forgotten today, were far more imperfect and needed badly to be replaced. The Framers were, if nothing else, practical men, and recognized that the new document went much farther in ensuring the continuation of this noble ideal, far from a foregone conclusion at the time. Were compromises made? Yes, and perhaps they could have been more articulate, but to pretend from our present position that it is "fundamentally flawed" is to deny history and the huge sea change this represented.
Why can't people acknowledge both? Why must we "condemn" rather than praise while recognizing the work that was left to be done?
5
People at the time knew that slavery was wrong.
Beating, whipping, torturing, raping, and killing people was wrong.
Even the Romans had some notion of legal status for the people they enslaved: our system was far more brutal.
Beating, whipping, torturing, raping, and killing people was wrong.
Even the Romans had some notion of legal status for the people they enslaved: our system was far more brutal.
Professor Wilentz makes a strong case, but it is important to recognize that not all historians would agree with his conclusions.
In any case, I think the point that needs to be emphasized is that the Constitution enshrined property rights as superior to human rights. The Constitution protects slavery by protecting the right of the states to determine property rights within their boundaries. It is for this reason that Lincoln, and the Republicans generally, denied any intention of attacking slavery in the states where it existed. They claimed the federal government could ban slavery in the territories, because that was land that belonged to the nation, not to any state.
Professor Wilentz claims the civil war resulted from a disagreement over whether slavery was a local (state) or national institution. This is true in the sense that southerners claimed a right to take their slaves into the territories. But at least as important was the conviction of many southerners that the Republicans lied when they promised to leave slavery alone in the states. In this sense, southerners favoring secession feared that even the preservation of a slavery as a local institution was at risk.
In any case, I think the point that needs to be emphasized is that the Constitution enshrined property rights as superior to human rights. The Constitution protects slavery by protecting the right of the states to determine property rights within their boundaries. It is for this reason that Lincoln, and the Republicans generally, denied any intention of attacking slavery in the states where it existed. They claimed the federal government could ban slavery in the territories, because that was land that belonged to the nation, not to any state.
Professor Wilentz claims the civil war resulted from a disagreement over whether slavery was a local (state) or national institution. This is true in the sense that southerners claimed a right to take their slaves into the territories. But at least as important was the conviction of many southerners that the Republicans lied when they promised to leave slavery alone in the states. In this sense, southerners favoring secession feared that even the preservation of a slavery as a local institution was at risk.
1
Mr. Wilentz's arguments are weak and splitting hairs. No one can argue the Constitution was a collection of compromises purposely vaguely written so that the 13 Original Colonies - with many disparate interests - could be melded in to a Union for their mutual benefit and necessity if they were to succeed as a nation. Each was able to see in it what they wanted and claim to their constituents victory. This was as true on such issues as Federalism as it was for Slavery.
Indeed, if anything, it is "Compromise" that should be considered as the National Institution Constitutionally. But with that said, Slavery was as much a part of our Constitution as any other element. It may have been a political necessity but it was also a reality and it is a deep scare on America's soul that has yet to heal.
Incidentally, given that the Constitution was nothing more then purposely vaguely written compromises the very notion of "Original Intent" in interpreting the Constitution is absurd. The Original Intent of the founders was to be purposely vague so everyone could see what they wanted in it.
Indeed, if anything, it is "Compromise" that should be considered as the National Institution Constitutionally. But with that said, Slavery was as much a part of our Constitution as any other element. It may have been a political necessity but it was also a reality and it is a deep scare on America's soul that has yet to heal.
Incidentally, given that the Constitution was nothing more then purposely vaguely written compromises the very notion of "Original Intent" in interpreting the Constitution is absurd. The Original Intent of the founders was to be purposely vague so everyone could see what they wanted in it.
Bernie is correct. The 3/5 vote enshrined slavery in the Constitution. Sean Wilentz differs from the United States Supreme Court, which decided in the Dredd-Scott case that slaves definitely were property and must be considered so in every state of the union. The need post-Civil War to amend the Constitution to allow African American former slaves to be citizens makes clear the prevailing view of the Constitution as late as 1865. Slavery also wasn't simply a Confederate-state institution. Delaware was a slave state. Northern bankers financed slavery and northern industry depended upon cheap southern cotton grown by slaves. Slaves were bought and sold in Washington, D.C. Lincoln went to war to preserve the union. He didn't mention freeing the slaves until later and didn't free them until much later.
The Constitution enshrines some great principles, but it was a product of its time and society and we err in not recognizing its many shortcomings. It did enshrine slavery. It did deny the vote to women. Generally, only property owning men were allowed to vote in many states. It did not trust 'we the people', that's why it did not allow for the popular election of Senators and provided a convoluted system of delegates to elect the president. The Bill of Rights had to be passed a little later.
Honor our Constitution for the new ground it broke in human liberty and how well it served us for almost two and a half centuries, but don't mythologize. Truth matters!
The Constitution enshrines some great principles, but it was a product of its time and society and we err in not recognizing its many shortcomings. It did enshrine slavery. It did deny the vote to women. Generally, only property owning men were allowed to vote in many states. It did not trust 'we the people', that's why it did not allow for the popular election of Senators and provided a convoluted system of delegates to elect the president. The Bill of Rights had to be passed a little later.
Honor our Constitution for the new ground it broke in human liberty and how well it served us for almost two and a half centuries, but don't mythologize. Truth matters!
7
One of the benefits of having the Constitution is that, if one participates in the government as a citizen, one has the ability to influence not only what laws are made but how well they are enforced. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Wilentz reminds us here of the importance of the words on the page. He also highlights how easy it is for these words to be twisted to fit an agenda when they are not specific enough, for whatever reason. We see this in religious texts such as the Bible, too.
For me, the most important takeaway here is just how important it is, with each generation, to have a strong civic education as part of the various things that we must learn as we grow up in this (or any) society. If one looks at public education today, one sees how little emphasis is placed on civics and how much is placed on preparing for the workplace.
Fortunately, many young people, inspired by unfortunate events, are waking up to the fact that the Constitution is an instrument which affords them the ability to strengthen their position in this society and in the world. Women, the elderly, children and people of various cultural/racial/religious backgrounds are getting politically active. The Constitution can either be a tool for creating a more just society, or it can be just a piece of paper. The key is getting involved and staying involved, joining the PTA, getting on the local community board, and fighting for what is right, in spite of the resistance one encounters.
For me, the most important takeaway here is just how important it is, with each generation, to have a strong civic education as part of the various things that we must learn as we grow up in this (or any) society. If one looks at public education today, one sees how little emphasis is placed on civics and how much is placed on preparing for the workplace.
Fortunately, many young people, inspired by unfortunate events, are waking up to the fact that the Constitution is an instrument which affords them the ability to strengthen their position in this society and in the world. Women, the elderly, children and people of various cultural/racial/religious backgrounds are getting politically active. The Constitution can either be a tool for creating a more just society, or it can be just a piece of paper. The key is getting involved and staying involved, joining the PTA, getting on the local community board, and fighting for what is right, in spite of the resistance one encounters.
4
In 1787 the country was in shambles. Not only was Congress bankrupt, notes for the loans to conduct the Revolutionary War were coming due, it hadn't the power to enforce any tax assessments to pay them. Not only that, trade wars between the states threatened the nation's economic viability and unity, making it vulnerable to regional economic and territorial incursions by France, Spain and Britain, all salivating at the chaos, waiting for the implosion which would give them the opportunity to move in.
Something had to be done and fast. Hence the Convention.
The delegates knew that the issue of slavery so inflammatory that any attempt to eliminate it would cause the Convention to abort, which had to be avoided at all costs if they were to have any hope of creating a national government capable of dealing with the issues then threatened our existence. It is in that context that the subject of slavery was tacitly elided.
As such, as evidenced by Madison's, "Notes On the Constitutional Convention of 1787" and contemporary observations, the notion that the Convention's failure to eliminate slavery effectively established it as a foundational premise of our Constitution is spurious.
To assert otherwise would logically lead to the absurdity that the Convention's failure to criminalize rape and murder condoned them too.
7
This is faulty reasoning. Rape and murder were matters taken care of by the common law tradition, existing judicial codes, and so forth. These issues were not ever contested. Slavery was contested, and the legal rules for it were dependent on the Constitution.
Mr. Wilentz is an excellent historian but I believe he chooses to muddle certain issues to bend them toward supporting his argument.
That some people were considered to be only 3/5 of a person under the Constitution certainly indicates that those who voted for it accepted that there were living, breathing human beings who weren't to be considered full people. And, it should be noted that the 14th and 15th amendments to the country may have in theory changed things but into the 20th century there were still northerners who felt that it was unfair to allow black people in the south, who were almost universally prevented from voting after Reconstruction, to be counted as full people in the census which apportioned representation in the House of Representatives.
And the only reason why that 3/5th rule didn't apply to the Senate is that every state gets two senators no matter its population size.
Finally, as to that blow against slavery of ending the slave trade. In fact, many slave holders had no problem with it as it made slaves already in the U.S. and those born here a scarcer resource and therefore more valuable. Also, despite the law, there were still those who managed to break the law and import slaves. That even pro-slavery presidents sent the U.S. Navy to the coast of Africa to try to prevent the slave trade indicates that it wasn't a concern for slaves that resulted in the ban.
That some people were considered to be only 3/5 of a person under the Constitution certainly indicates that those who voted for it accepted that there were living, breathing human beings who weren't to be considered full people. And, it should be noted that the 14th and 15th amendments to the country may have in theory changed things but into the 20th century there were still northerners who felt that it was unfair to allow black people in the south, who were almost universally prevented from voting after Reconstruction, to be counted as full people in the census which apportioned representation in the House of Representatives.
And the only reason why that 3/5th rule didn't apply to the Senate is that every state gets two senators no matter its population size.
Finally, as to that blow against slavery of ending the slave trade. In fact, many slave holders had no problem with it as it made slaves already in the U.S. and those born here a scarcer resource and therefore more valuable. Also, despite the law, there were still those who managed to break the law and import slaves. That even pro-slavery presidents sent the U.S. Navy to the coast of Africa to try to prevent the slave trade indicates that it wasn't a concern for slaves that resulted in the ban.
1
The key assertion in this column, and those of the leaders in both Northern and Southern camps from the Constitutional Convention to the end of the Civil War, is largely a matter of one's point of view.
The Constitution implicitly acknowledged the existence of slavery as an American institution. It made concessions to the southern states on the basis of slavery, although some of them could have (and still do have) an existence and purpose independent of slavery; the electoral college could be viewed as a beneficial survival, not of slavery itself, but of the same circumstances that led southerners to fear political domination by the industrial centers of the north.
The Constitution did not forbid slavery in any state, and it did guarantee all citizens rights in their property, which was part of the holding in the Dred Scott decision. That principle still stands as a bulwark of property law, which may seem ironic, as the original reason for Dred Scott has long since vanished.
But it is also true that the Constitution did not enshrine slavery as a right; did not define what property was; did not prevent any state or the federal government from regulating, limiting, or abolishing it, providing that due process was followed. So in that respect, Mr. Wilentz is right. The Constitution protected the rights of those who owned slaves the same as it protected the rights of everybody else, but it neither created nor protected the institution of slavery from extinction.
The Constitution implicitly acknowledged the existence of slavery as an American institution. It made concessions to the southern states on the basis of slavery, although some of them could have (and still do have) an existence and purpose independent of slavery; the electoral college could be viewed as a beneficial survival, not of slavery itself, but of the same circumstances that led southerners to fear political domination by the industrial centers of the north.
The Constitution did not forbid slavery in any state, and it did guarantee all citizens rights in their property, which was part of the holding in the Dred Scott decision. That principle still stands as a bulwark of property law, which may seem ironic, as the original reason for Dred Scott has long since vanished.
But it is also true that the Constitution did not enshrine slavery as a right; did not define what property was; did not prevent any state or the federal government from regulating, limiting, or abolishing it, providing that due process was followed. So in that respect, Mr. Wilentz is right. The Constitution protected the rights of those who owned slaves the same as it protected the rights of everybody else, but it neither created nor protected the institution of slavery from extinction.
2
The author makes the rather simplistic error of conflating "the Nation" with "the Constitution". The Constitution is no more the totality of the Nation than a birth certificate is a person. We are more than just our documentation.
The Constitution is the framework that undergirds our system of laws, and as such is extremely important in crafting the fabric of our culture, but The Nation is our laws, our lives, our economy, our cities, our villages, our environment, our literature, our collective experience. And slavery was most definitely woven into every aspect of the birth of our nation.
Attempts to settle the English colonies consistently failed until a system of indentured servitude was established. The first inheritable slaves were Native Americans. That failed because they lacked resistance to European diseases, so died too quickly, and easily escaped into the familiar countryside. African slaves made the southern plantation system possible, and the northern states indirectly profited from that system. Would America have been possible without the institution of slavery? Perhaps, but that's not how it happened.
The real "myth" here is that the legalistic wrangling of ambivalent slaveholders such as Madison somehow absolves "the Nation" of participation in the peculiar institution. It doesn't. Our Nation may have been morally conflicted about slavery from the beginning, but our country was built on their backs.
The Constitution is the framework that undergirds our system of laws, and as such is extremely important in crafting the fabric of our culture, but The Nation is our laws, our lives, our economy, our cities, our villages, our environment, our literature, our collective experience. And slavery was most definitely woven into every aspect of the birth of our nation.
Attempts to settle the English colonies consistently failed until a system of indentured servitude was established. The first inheritable slaves were Native Americans. That failed because they lacked resistance to European diseases, so died too quickly, and easily escaped into the familiar countryside. African slaves made the southern plantation system possible, and the northern states indirectly profited from that system. Would America have been possible without the institution of slavery? Perhaps, but that's not how it happened.
The real "myth" here is that the legalistic wrangling of ambivalent slaveholders such as Madison somehow absolves "the Nation" of participation in the peculiar institution. It doesn't. Our Nation may have been morally conflicted about slavery from the beginning, but our country was built on their backs.
26
This is another example of the lamentable level of contemporary historiography. Professor Wilentz would have you believe that, "Without that antislavery outcome in 1787, slavery would not have reached “ultimate extinction” in 1865." Laws (including the US Constitution) are a reflection and product of existing social relations. In the most "fundamental sense" - laws are a consequence not a cause. The 14th Amendment (and the Civil War that produced it) was a product of two factors: the continuous and irrepressible efforts of men and women in bondage (such as Douglass) to resist and escape, whenever possible, that condition and the coincident conflict of interests between Northern and Southern US capitalism. By the time of the mid-19th Century the former was based on the exploitation of "free" labor and the latter was based on generating fortunes through the ruthless institution of slave labor. The Civil War was prolonged and bloody precisely because of the deep connections between the two (Northern and Southern capitalism). After a brief period of Reconstruction the two spheres of American economic life found a way to live with each other once again. To propose that the blood-soaked end of slavery was the delayed outcome of 1787 is shockingly absurd.
6
The core of Mr. Walentz argument is that half a loaf is no loaf at all. He's correct that Souther delegates didn't get everything they wanted. But the fact that the constitution didn't guarantee the right to own slaves was unnecessary. The political compromise for the limitation on the international slave trade was balanced by the three fifths clause. This insured that the South would have sufficient political power to protect their institution. So what wasn't enshrined in the constitution was implicitly guaranteed to the states to regulate.
The Supreme Court held in the Dred Scott case that free states had no effect on the rights of slave holders who might travel with their slaves to throughout the nation. The court in dicta also held that our constitution supported property rights in human beings and the Fugitive Slave Act compelled federal courts to enforce those rights.
While some Northerners thought that slavery would whither away the exact opposite happened. From 1790 to 1860 cotton production increased 400%. Slaves constituted the largest capital investment in America, greater than banking and railroads. Slaves in California were put to work in mining and timber mills.
The silence of our constitution on the rights of all men was a clear acquiescence to slavery and simply embraced the issue as state sovereignty. Without the 13th Amendment slavery might have continued until the eve of the 20th century as it did in Brazil. Our constitution was never colorblind.
The Supreme Court held in the Dred Scott case that free states had no effect on the rights of slave holders who might travel with their slaves to throughout the nation. The court in dicta also held that our constitution supported property rights in human beings and the Fugitive Slave Act compelled federal courts to enforce those rights.
While some Northerners thought that slavery would whither away the exact opposite happened. From 1790 to 1860 cotton production increased 400%. Slaves constituted the largest capital investment in America, greater than banking and railroads. Slaves in California were put to work in mining and timber mills.
The silence of our constitution on the rights of all men was a clear acquiescence to slavery and simply embraced the issue as state sovereignty. Without the 13th Amendment slavery might have continued until the eve of the 20th century as it did in Brazil. Our constitution was never colorblind.
16
The Constitution, at a minimum, tolerated slavery, but, more accurately, privileged slavery with its 3/5ths clause (without which Jefferson wouldn't have won the presidency), and then, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, pursuant to the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution, brought the federal government into active support of slavery.
That's enough to support the contention that the Constitution "recognized" slavery in the "national institutions" it created. The presidency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court reflected the slave interest.
The economy of the US was built on slavery, with northern merchants and financiers key components of, and vastly profiting from, the Southern slave economy, and with the Northern economy key suppliers of food and materials to the South in trade. "National laws" and "national institutions" fostered the economy prospering of slavery, directly, throughout the South and, indirectly, throughout the North.
The US was a "slave society" as Ira Berlin has said, not just a "society with slaves." We were "infected" root and branch.
Our Constitution was infused throughout by slavery and the early US economy, supported by national law, was built on slavery. It took a civil war to change that.
To argue over the words "recognize" and "sanction" and "national institution" ... is to be academically pedantic beyond toleration.
That's enough to support the contention that the Constitution "recognized" slavery in the "national institutions" it created. The presidency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court reflected the slave interest.
The economy of the US was built on slavery, with northern merchants and financiers key components of, and vastly profiting from, the Southern slave economy, and with the Northern economy key suppliers of food and materials to the South in trade. "National laws" and "national institutions" fostered the economy prospering of slavery, directly, throughout the South and, indirectly, throughout the North.
The US was a "slave society" as Ira Berlin has said, not just a "society with slaves." We were "infected" root and branch.
Our Constitution was infused throughout by slavery and the early US economy, supported by national law, was built on slavery. It took a civil war to change that.
To argue over the words "recognize" and "sanction" and "national institution" ... is to be academically pedantic beyond toleration.
65
Wilentz is either a fool or a sophist. He's spends a lot of time on word play but apparently is unfamiliar with the terms de facto and de jure.
3
For heaven's sake, such careful analysis of the history of the convention to prove what precisely? Whether or not slavery by its terms was, or was not, expressly included or repudiated in the final document that became the Constitution of the United States of America alters what? The facts are that slavery was fully embraced by the framers, discussed and debated at length according to this historian, and it should have been denounced and abolished as wholly inconsistent with the bedrock principles of freedom, equality, liberty, and democracy, but it was not. It was clearly not an oversight, but was allowed to continue by these great men with great minds. The fact is that the founding document is, by its terms, hypocritical, and the writer makes a strong case for it. It assumed a whole race of people as unworthy of the full and unqualified fundamental rights of human beings. The writer finds that breathtaking fact, well-proven by his essay, to be insufficient to label it as racist. This essay makes quite a persuasive case that the framers wrote our Constitution and designed it to ensure that its clarion bells of freedom would ring hollow for all human chattel in their midst. Whether it expressly included slavery, or not, the result was the same for the slaves.
177
Well stated. Can not agree more.
1
Although I respect Wilentz as a scholar, particularly his earlier work, this is pure sophistry. Playing with the term "national institution", he elides the question of what is national law. There were at least two laws that were national, both fugitive slave laws. As for whether the U.S. was founded on slavery, I think the answer lies with both sides: true liberty was the dream, slavery the reality. Look to the Virginia Ascendancy and the Jacksonians for the establishment of an empire for slavery. Another problematic publicity stunt in the NYT op-ed section.
37
I believe that the article, while correct in so far as it goes, misses one important point. The real conflict was not between pro and anti slavery proponents, but between those who wanted a strong Federal government and those who supported State's rights; and on this issue the State's rights group won. By not explicitly granting the power to regulate slavery to the Federal government, the ninth and tenth amendments granted the individual states the right to do as they wished on the issue.
"This hard fact, though, did not sanction slavery in national law, as a national institution, as so many critics presume. "
What a splitting of hairs. Sure slavery wasn't sanctioned in national law, but it wasn't forbidden either. Leaving slavery up to the states meant - that slavery would continue. Sheesh.
What a splitting of hairs. Sure slavery wasn't sanctioned in national law, but it wasn't forbidden either. Leaving slavery up to the states meant - that slavery would continue. Sheesh.
26
It's not splitting of hairs. If the people who were opposed to slavery back in the 1780's stood their ground, there never would have been a national law at all. The Constitution did not, could not ban slavery, but it did start the process of limiting it's growth and influence with the ban on importing new slaves and limiting the slavers ability to use them to enhance their political power in Washington.
While I appreciate the point the author makes, I think it is more accurate to say that while the constitution does not enshrine it, the on ground truth was not the case since the next 100 years were spent with the point being vigorously debated int he courts back and forth in the courts, and reality and rarely ending in positively for the people would would be considered property African-Americans.
3
The good professor has a point and then he doesn't. he point: slave ownership as such is not codified as an explicit and individuated right in the Constitution. There was a good deal of debate among thew framers about how to intertwine slavery and the Constitution, and that brings one to the point the professor doesn't take: that not enshrining slave ownership as an explicit, individuated right is far from not having it as an institution present in the document. The statement that the Constitution is not "based" in "racist principles" is vague -- it depends on what means by "based" and "racist principles." For my part, there is enough overlap between slavery and the framing to satisfy the reverse: that it was so based. It's a simple, and sound inference.
15
The 3/5 clause was in the constitution, was it not? Therefore, this notion was enshrined in the Constitution. And sanctioning slavery at the local level was done in a document that applied at a national level. The administration of this institution was left in the hands of the states, but at the national level of the Constitution this institution was tolerated, making it much harder for succeeding generations to eliminate slavery.
The professor has fallen victim to specious logic.
The professor has fallen victim to specious logic.
Sean Wilentz, the great historian that he is, of course got it right -- but only as a technical point. Sanders, the great politician that he is, got it right, but only as a sense of the politics of the time. What we see here is the outcome of the difficulty, and the necessity, of fact-checking coupled with over-simplification (a problem often found in the politi-fact columns of many newspapers). Slavery was not written into the Constitution, and so was not a national legal right -- technically the national legal institution did not include slavery as a constitutional right. However, it was practiced and supported by state laws. So it was an institution of the states of the nation (and was in the hearts and minds of many). Wilentz point is important beyond Sanders' phrasing (Sanders intended I suppose to connect current racism with the nation's history). Wilentz' point has implications for original intent arguments --for legal and cultural reasons (there was support, but also opposition, to the continuation of slavery). Sanders point is important beyond the legal technicality. But it is too hard to say that in a headline. Unfortunately, few read beyond headlines, and headlines often distort. Sanders, Wilentz, and the media need to learn how to express their nuance better. And those commenting should not go for cheap shots.
17
Right! Too many of the commenters are not paying attention to the specificity of Wilentz's argument. Rigor of language and logic are important. But Sanders's point is, overall, defensible. The vast majority of people who could vote were racist (and perhaps most still are) and the nation's history can't be understood without realizing how integral slavery and racism have been to it. Similarly, black people were not defined as 3/5 of a person, as so many people repeat ad nauseum. It was an issue of a tug of war over how much representation southern (white male property-owning) voters would get in the House. But of course black people weren't regarded as fully human by most white people,or many of the framers, either.
1
Technically Wilentz might be right, but his victory would be Pyrrhic: in proving his point he provides strong evidence that slavery was implicit in the founding documents and discussions, with numerous pro-slavery compromises, starting with continued slaveholding by all the southern Fathers (including George Mason). Indeed some scholars conclude that the abolition of slavery in the UK (Somersett Case) was the main trigger for the Revolution.
16
He isn't "technically right". He is right. He acknowledges that just about everyone of the Colonial period saw black people as inferior. They were mistaken about that. Yet even with their racist views they worked to create a Constitution and political reality that in time would destroy slavery. Lincoln saw that and worked with it. Being a responsible human being in your own age usually means you don't get to be totally pure.
Context: Wilenz supported Mrs. Clinton in 2008, and has been harshly critical of Mr. Obama since he defeated her. Wilenz once again supports Mrs. Clinton, and no doubt isn't particularly fond of Senator Sanders for challenging her. I greatly admire Wilenz both as a historian and for his political loyalties, but sometimes it's difficult to separate the two.
14
"The delegates could never have created a federal union if they had given power to the national government to meddle in the property laws of the slave states."
If the delegates had not compromised on slavery, there would not have been 13 states in the United States of America. Who knows how long slavery as an institution would have lasted in a confederation of nothing but slaveholding states that enshrined slavery into their constitution.
If the delegates had not compromised on slavery, there would not have been 13 states in the United States of America. Who knows how long slavery as an institution would have lasted in a confederation of nothing but slaveholding states that enshrined slavery into their constitution.
10
I don't get the author's claim that slavery is not in national law despite slavery's presence in the 3/5 compromise.
6
The 3/5 compromise was an attempt to lessen the amount of seats the southern states had in the House. Ironically it might have made the civil war inevitable.
If the slaveholders had their way, the slaves would have counted as a full person. Remember, this is being used in the equation that determines how much representation slave states get in Congress. Because the slaves themselves couldn't vote, the more representation the south secured in Congress, the better chance they had of perpetuating and protecting the institution of slavery on a national level. It was northerners, and abolitionists, who wanted slaves to count for nothing. So, it in a counterintuitive way, at that time if would have been in slaves' best interest to not count as ANYTHING.
The 3/5 compromise was about how to apportion congressional representation. It was a victory for the anti-slavery forces because had slaves been counted as a whole person than the South would have had more representatives in Congress and therefore more power to maintain slavery as an institution. Slaves shouldn't have been counted at all since because they weren't free any advantage gained from counting them only helped their masters, the people oppressing them.
Wrap it up in all the legalese you want, but you're still splitting hairs. The south would have fought to keep slavery irrespective of what was in the constitution, or they would have interpreted what was actually in the constitution any way they wanted in order to keep slavery.
How do you think the history of America would have looked if slavery had lasted beyond 1865? Would the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be the Abolition of Slavery Act of 1964 instead? Would there have been decades more of this "non-institution."
A large part of this country risked and lost everything they had, including their lives, in order to protect the institution of slavery. It doesn't matter if this was in the constitution or not. and I question whether it affected the ultimate outcome.
How do you think the history of America would have looked if slavery had lasted beyond 1865? Would the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be the Abolition of Slavery Act of 1964 instead? Would there have been decades more of this "non-institution."
A large part of this country risked and lost everything they had, including their lives, in order to protect the institution of slavery. It doesn't matter if this was in the constitution or not. and I question whether it affected the ultimate outcome.
14
I have to admit that, too me, it seems to be sophistry to say, on the one hand, that the constitution admits to counting free people and all other people (i.e. what everyone knew to mean black slaves) and, on the other hand, contend that, since the word "slavery" is not in the constitution, that it was not a national institution. It's kind of like saying that Jefferson and Madison were true believers in freedom, just, somehow, not quite for their own slaves. I can't help seeing it as a national institution--a contentious one, but national none-the-less.
18
The 13th amendement to the US Constituion clearly says:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Which means that indentured servitude, a form of slavery, is legal in the United States and is widely practiced in our prison system which includes the "farming out" of inmates for unpaid labour. More, reconstruction was mainly done by former slaves who became unemployed and targets of the legal system. Many continued to be slaves with a change of master.
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Which means that indentured servitude, a form of slavery, is legal in the United States and is widely practiced in our prison system which includes the "farming out" of inmates for unpaid labour. More, reconstruction was mainly done by former slaves who became unemployed and targets of the legal system. Many continued to be slaves with a change of master.
3
I'm not completely convinced of the author's main point, that it is a myth that this country was founded on the idea of slavery. It's a topic worthy of discussion and debate. What I think is an almost larger myth is the contemporary claim that the secession of the slave states and the subsequent Civil War was about "states rights", something I hear not infrequently from Tea Party style fringes. That notion is not what Calhoun appealed to in his statements about the Constitution, but rather that the document was proslavery.
7
Yes it was. The right of the states to have, or not have, slaves. And whether that right was up to the Federal govt. to decide or the state to decide.
The cause of the civil war was to a certain extent states rights, that is the right of the citizens of slave owning states to be able to preserve their property rights anywhere in the union, including the territories. The slave states certainly didn't think that the territories and new states should have the right to prohibit the slave owners from migrating there with their slaves.
Tomorrow will come with another article saying the exact opposite. So much for over intellectualization. It's hard to erase the 3/5ths clause as not being racist and pro slavery. Just because there was no definitive agreement on it as an institution, it was an acknowledged practice for which the slave states gained additional representation and power as a result of the clause. Everyone knows this. What is the article trying to say or not say? If you followed the evolution of the laws surrounding slaves, indentured servants and the like, you will note that it eventually centered around the color of the person's skin. We can not deny this, nor the repercussions for the many lives negatively effected by it. No matter how hard one might wish for a sense of equality among all, it is just not going to happen in a country like ours with our history. If it is not the color of your skin, it is your utilitarian value with the least monetary renumeration attached to its use that makes this country less than what it could be.
Missouri Compromise
Henry Clay (The Great Compromiser) brokered the deal. 1. Missouri admitted as a slave state, 2. Maine (part of Massachusetts) be admitted as a free state---Keep the balance in Congress, and 3. For the future, no slavery be admitted north of the 36'30" parallel line, except for Missouri
Missouri Compromise
Henry Clay (The Great Compromiser) brokered the deal. 1. Missouri admitted as a slave state, 2. Maine (part of Massachusetts) be admitted as a free state---Keep the balance in Congress, and 3. For the future, no slavery be admitted north of the 36'30" parallel line, except for Missouri
5
I'm no historian, but I understand that Lincoln absolutely did believe slavery to be constitutional in those states where it existed. The Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association reports:
"As early as 1837 he told a Young Men's Lyceum in Springfield, Illinois: "We must maintain a reverence for the Constitution and the laws." Later in the same year he presented resolutions in the state legislature, declaring: "Congress ... has no power under the Consititution to interfere with ... slavery in the different states." He echoed the same belief in 1859: "I believe we have not the power ... to interfere with ... slavery, or any other of the institutions of our sister states." And he carried the theme further in his first inaugural: "I have no purpose directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so...."
So I confess I have no idea what this Op-Ed writer means when he says that Lincoln "resolutely denied" that the Constitution recognized slavery.
"As early as 1837 he told a Young Men's Lyceum in Springfield, Illinois: "We must maintain a reverence for the Constitution and the laws." Later in the same year he presented resolutions in the state legislature, declaring: "Congress ... has no power under the Consititution to interfere with ... slavery in the different states." He echoed the same belief in 1859: "I believe we have not the power ... to interfere with ... slavery, or any other of the institutions of our sister states." And he carried the theme further in his first inaugural: "I have no purpose directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so...."
So I confess I have no idea what this Op-Ed writer means when he says that Lincoln "resolutely denied" that the Constitution recognized slavery.
15
It's a situation where just as Lincoln "evolved" on the question during his Presidency, our constitution via amendments, evolved as well, with the momentum of a costly civil war. But descendants of states rights defenders & civil war participants have never repudiated their history; for this reason, they are nominal Americans, in name only. These folks cannot Pledge their alligence to the U.S. and they get a pass for being un-American.
1
As stated in the article, he means that Lincoln "resolutely denied" that the Constitution recognized slavery as a national institution. The Constitution did not prohibit slavery in the states where it existed, as Lincoln acknowledged, but it also did not recognize slavery as a constitutionally protected property right that the governments of non-slave states could not prohibit in their states, and that the national government could not regulate, such as by preventing expansion into new states.
Lincoln believed that the Constitution protected the right of states to allow for slavery and the right of states to prohibit slavery. However, he noted that the constitution never uses the term slave. He compared the founders to persons with I believe a "wen" that they could not safely cut out without bleeding to death. He suggested that the founders put slavery to one side until it could be dealt with or otherwise removed. Of course, the pro slavery founders would not have agreed with this.
The Civil War began because the Yankees could not afford to lose the foreign exchange that cotton brought in and because they could not afford to lose the mouth of the Mississippi.
Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution required the return of fugitive slaves. Was this recognition of slavery?
Slavery officially entered into the Constitution with the ratification of Amendment XVI: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income ..." etc. It is noteworthy that the most viciously segregationist who ever served as president, Woodrow Wilson, put slavery back into our Constitution.
Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution required the return of fugitive slaves. Was this recognition of slavery?
Slavery officially entered into the Constitution with the ratification of Amendment XVI: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income ..." etc. It is noteworthy that the most viciously segregationist who ever served as president, Woodrow Wilson, put slavery back into our Constitution.
Wilson put slavery back into the Constitution because he created the progressive income tax system that funds our federal government, our military included?
The reasons you cite for the Civil War have long ago been repudiated. Enough of White Citizens Council style revisionism.
The reasons you cite for the Civil War have long ago been repudiated. Enough of White Citizens Council style revisionism.
The author is may as well assert that the nation was not founded on sexist principles.
16
@DJ Frost: "The author is may as well assert that the nation was not founded on sexist principles."
If you read the US Constitution carefully, you will see that it is gender-neutral. In contrast with the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution does not use the words "man", "manly", or "mankind".
You can verify those textual facts by doing word searches in the text of the US Constitution:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
If you read the US Constitution carefully, you will see that it is gender-neutral. In contrast with the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution does not use the words "man", "manly", or "mankind".
You can verify those textual facts by doing word searches in the text of the US Constitution:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
I enjoy Wilentz work but could not disagree more. Leading scholarship on this subject paints the opposite picture, especially George W. Van Cleve, A Slaveholders' Union: Slavery, Politics, and the Constitution in the Early American Republic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011). I would be willing to allow more latitude to Wilentz' argument if he saw the Constitution as a compromise between pro and anti-slavery ideologies. But the idea that the Constitution was an explicitly "antislavery outcome" is extremely difficult to support.
15
The start the piece by saying that the Civil War began over the question of whether the Constitution guaranteed slavery. You'd have us believe that, since the North prevailed in that argument, therefore, ipso facto, the country was not founded on slavery.
I wasn't even 3/5 convinced by this specious argument.
I wasn't even 3/5 convinced by this specious argument.
29
Wilentz is the expert on democracy (I've read his tome on the subject), but here he is splitting hairs. Lincoln et al. relied primarily on the Declaration of Independence and its call for personal freedoms for their anti-slavery argument, while Douglas et al. relied primarily on the Constitution and its protection of property rights for their pro-slavery argument, a dichotomy that continues to this day. See Heather Cox Richardson's recent book, To Make Men Free. And by enshrining in the Constitution a federal system that defers to the states for most government powers, limiting the federal government's powers to those enumerated, and by being silent on the issue of slavery, the framers knew that the issue of slavery was not settled by the Constitution. Indeed, we continue to argue to this day whether the enumerated powers of the federal government, the few that there are, are limited in scope, and whether the property rights enshrined in the Constitution override the personal freedoms recited in the Declaration of Independence. Personal freedoms vs. property rights. The issue has yet to be settled. The reality is that the union was fragile, and Washington et al. feared that if they didn't leave the Convention with a Constitution approved by the delegates, the union would fall apart and the British would exploit the chaos that followed.
9
I always found it odd the Lincoln relied on the Declaration of
Independence, the same document that held as its chief theme that free men had a right to rebel against any government they deemed to be tyrannical.
The often hypocritical Jefferson tried to insert as another grievance against mean old King George, that he "made us import slaves". Southern delegates to the Convention nixed that idea pretty quick.
Independence, the same document that held as its chief theme that free men had a right to rebel against any government they deemed to be tyrannical.
The often hypocritical Jefferson tried to insert as another grievance against mean old King George, that he "made us import slaves". Southern delegates to the Convention nixed that idea pretty quick.
Garry Wills in his book on the Gettysburg Address pointed out how Lincoln in his speech tried to make the Declaration of Independence which says nothing about what form of government should replace the British king or what laws should be instituted into the founding document of the country. The problem as he and many others pointed out was that the DOI by saying all men are created equal but not saying anything about slavery made slaves into property and not people.
This article takes a murky word-game of a general dispute, and makes it murkier still.
There is no doubt that slavery was the cause of the secessionist rebellion that is today called the Civil War.
There is also little doubt that for millions of Northerners, the war was fought to save their country. There is also little doubt that for millions of non-slave-owning Southerners, the war was fought to save their homes.
There is no doubt that slavery was the cause of the secessionist rebellion that is today called the Civil War.
There is also little doubt that for millions of Northerners, the war was fought to save their country. There is also little doubt that for millions of non-slave-owning Southerners, the war was fought to save their homes.
1
If the secessionist declaration of Mississippi , in particular, is read there will be no doubt the the civil war was fought to preserve not their homes but slavery. They were out to protect the "system" that gave the south "free" , an ironic word in this context, labor for cotton, rice and other planters crops.
The US Constitution did not endorse humans as property but it did not forbid it either. A masterfully composed document that on the one hand gave the states sovereignty and on the other took it away. The delegates had to walk on the knife edge to get it done.
The US Constitution did not endorse humans as property but it did not forbid it either. A masterfully composed document that on the one hand gave the states sovereignty and on the other took it away. The delegates had to walk on the knife edge to get it done.
38
How were non-slave holding white southerners subject to losing their homes?
1
And white supremacy.
When one says that the nation was founded on slavery, racism, or that the nation was founded on racist on racist principles, it is not a statement that racism was codified in our Constitution. Very little was directly codified in the Constitution.
It is instead a admission that the basis of the economy in the South was slavery - the southerners were protecting their way of life, their economy - and that not outlawing it directly kept it as the underpinning for a huge portion of the nation's wealth. We looked the other way when we ratified the Constitution. It took us almost a century after the revolution to fix that.
We can also say that the nation was built on the back of immigrants. The Constitution dis not directly OK the abuse of labor which built the nation's wealth. But it didn't prevent it either.
Taking responsibility for our past mistakes - making sure we understand what some compromises cost us - is not buying into Calhoun's argument about slavery being a Constitutional protection. It is an admission that sometimes what you *don't* put into a law or Constitution matters as much as what you do put in.
Look at things squarely, don't get sidetracked by distractions: look at what happens as a result of our laws and actions. It is the only way we can see and fix injustices that we are otherwise blind to.
It is instead a admission that the basis of the economy in the South was slavery - the southerners were protecting their way of life, their economy - and that not outlawing it directly kept it as the underpinning for a huge portion of the nation's wealth. We looked the other way when we ratified the Constitution. It took us almost a century after the revolution to fix that.
We can also say that the nation was built on the back of immigrants. The Constitution dis not directly OK the abuse of labor which built the nation's wealth. But it didn't prevent it either.
Taking responsibility for our past mistakes - making sure we understand what some compromises cost us - is not buying into Calhoun's argument about slavery being a Constitutional protection. It is an admission that sometimes what you *don't* put into a law or Constitution matters as much as what you do put in.
Look at things squarely, don't get sidetracked by distractions: look at what happens as a result of our laws and actions. It is the only way we can see and fix injustices that we are otherwise blind to.
265
It is our original sin as a nation and it will be with us forever. European coloniAlists just left and returned home. We brought our slaves with us Europeans to create a new world. We created the inferiority /superiority in the DNA of the USA-all of it. Can we erase it?
Why does everybody assume that those founding fathers who sought abolition made a mistake in accepting a compromise? Had they insisted on outlawing slavery in the constitution, the constitution would simply not have been ratified, and there would be no national government as we now know it. They chose a path that was generally assumed to lead to the peaceful, gradual abolition of slavery (and probably would have, were it not for the unanticipated effects of the cotton gin).
The difference between the founding fathers and the political hacks of today are that the founding fathers recognized that politics is the art of the possible. Exactly what do you think they should have done, and why do you think it would have produced a better outcome?
The difference between the founding fathers and the political hacks of today are that the founding fathers recognized that politics is the art of the possible. Exactly what do you think they should have done, and why do you think it would have produced a better outcome?
And please remember that slaves also played a significant role in the northern economy as well. For example, the ships of the triangle trade were built in, and sailed from and to, New England ports. White supremacy and racism was, and sadly remains to some extent, a national malady.
one remarkable moment in this debate was a conflict between radical abolitionists. william lloyd garrison held that the constitution countenanced slavery (whether as 'a national institution' i don't know), called it 'a pact with the devil' and burned it publicly. lysander spooner developed an entire theory of textual and legal interpretation to argue in *the unconstitutionality of slavery* that the institution was plainly unconstitutional.
2
Mere sophistry. Even if the Constitution did not provide a de jure basis for slavery, society and economics certainly provided a de facto basis.
While I was still living and working in New York, the NY Historical Society had a BRILLIANT exhibition on the role that slavery had in benefiting New York society and economy.
There was simply too much collusion and profiting from slavery to claim that slavery was not a national institution, to our shame.
While I was still living and working in New York, the NY Historical Society had a BRILLIANT exhibition on the role that slavery had in benefiting New York society and economy.
There was simply too much collusion and profiting from slavery to claim that slavery was not a national institution, to our shame.
95
Whether the delegates sanctioned slavery on a federal level or a state level, they sanctioned slavery.
25
To me the fact that slave trade was not abolished from the beginning gave a legitimacy to it which cannot be denied. The idea that the white men seated around a table at the Constitutional Convention allowed slavery to continue to 1800... then extended it to 1808 was, in effect condoning the practice and thus institutionalizing it. Add to this the painful truth that many of our leaders were slave owners and a precedent was set that gave many white citizens the impression they were somehow superior to the native people and the Africans forcefully brought here. In too many places in our country this attitude prevails. As long as we continue to make excuses for our past decisions, we will perpetuate the unenlightened views of our ancestors.
217
At that time, as now, any practice that made even a few powerful people rich was going to be defended. For a contemporary example, look no farther than the Koch Brothers' efforts to repudiate man-made climate change. The powerful few will always fight for what makes them money. What is our excuse in this present day for allowing them to win?
2
Not to quibble with your post, for you make some legitimate points, but put yourself in the place of the writers at the time - what was the practical alternative and what would you have proposed differently that would have succeeded?
Laws, constitutions, etc., are often documents of compromise. The Articles of Confederation, the first "constitution" proved deeply flawed and unworkable. Thus for the US to continue to exist something new had to be crafted, something that would allow the nation to continue and not fragment back to a horde of rival nation states. The slave holders wanted much clearer language to specifically permit slavery, something they didn't get. Again, the end product may not have been perfect, but saying today that they should simply have abolished slavery (which was still legal as well else where in the world, including our founding nation, Great Britain) would have ensured failure. The real world is more often than not, imperfect.
Laws, constitutions, etc., are often documents of compromise. The Articles of Confederation, the first "constitution" proved deeply flawed and unworkable. Thus for the US to continue to exist something new had to be crafted, something that would allow the nation to continue and not fragment back to a horde of rival nation states. The slave holders wanted much clearer language to specifically permit slavery, something they didn't get. Again, the end product may not have been perfect, but saying today that they should simply have abolished slavery (which was still legal as well else where in the world, including our founding nation, Great Britain) would have ensured failure. The real world is more often than not, imperfect.
1
You also make some very legitimate points. I don't fault the people who made those decisions a couple hundred years ago as much as I fault people today who try to deny or gloss over those decisions. Too much of our history has been rewritten too cover-up atrocities and to make our country more perfect than it is. AS you say, the world was a different place when these decision were made. We need to acknowledge the fact the decisions were wrong if we are to avoid making the same harmful decisions over and over again.
Thank you Sean Wilentz for this insightful Op Ed. The easy manner in which Sander's comment rolled off his tongue was revealing of his deepest leftist beliefs - a belief centered on that group's central argument which is that the US is and was a flawed nation - right from the beginning. I doubt that Sanders appreciates how negatively his comment will be viewed given that it is so blightly assumed in the company he travels.
It's a major gaffe - as he will come to see. If he defends it he will win points with left leaning voters - but he already has those - and it might help with black voters inclined towards HRC. But in the general presidential election it would be a disaster. Americans simply don't believe as Sander's and the left wing does. It's not even a side issue - it's fundamental that Americans believe in the superiority of America; and that a guiding principle - the guiding principle upon which this nation was founded - is that all men are created equal.
Americans know that their country had and has flaws but also that none strives greater than as expressed in Madison's preamble to the Constitution which states as goal to be "a more perfect nation." Even Obama rejects Sander's words as he stated in a speech that "in no other country on Earth is my story even possible." Sanders has just dug himself a hole.
It's a major gaffe - as he will come to see. If he defends it he will win points with left leaning voters - but he already has those - and it might help with black voters inclined towards HRC. But in the general presidential election it would be a disaster. Americans simply don't believe as Sander's and the left wing does. It's not even a side issue - it's fundamental that Americans believe in the superiority of America; and that a guiding principle - the guiding principle upon which this nation was founded - is that all men are created equal.
Americans know that their country had and has flaws but also that none strives greater than as expressed in Madison's preamble to the Constitution which states as goal to be "a more perfect nation." Even Obama rejects Sander's words as he stated in a speech that "in no other country on Earth is my story even possible." Sanders has just dug himself a hole.
10
I believe that President Obama has referred to slavery as the "original sin" of the United States. We have been and continue to be a racist society. We are moving away from our beginning racism in giant steps at time. However in my lifetime, yes I'm an old geezer, blacks were barred from major league baseball till Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in 1948. There are more examples of modern racist policies and practices that are based on the original,Constitution, sin of the US.
Actually, the Preamble to the Constitution states that the goal is to "form a more perfect Union". This is very different from forming "A more perfect nation". Obviously, at the time it was necessary to make some compromises regarding slavery to form "a more perfect Union", even though the founders could see that it would not result in a "perfect nation".
This article is nothing more than a piece of pro-US propaganda and an attempt to re-write history. The author seems to need to feel good about America's vicious history as a nation that endorsed slavery. Well he should get over it and stop using technicalities to "prove" that the US is a good country. It's a viciously racist nation founded by people like the Monster of Monticello -- slaveholder Thomas Jefferson! And both George and Martha Washington were vicious slaveholders who kept their slaves in bondage even beyond their own deaths, despite Martha's promise to free them!
Slavery is very much a national institution in US history and a very, very shameful one that has also lead to decades of institutional racism in the US. Mr. Wilentz seems to be standing on the technicality that the US Constitution itself did not explicitly authorize slavery. However every provision necessary for slavery to exist was written into the US Constitution by the slave-holding, slavery-loving, racist, sexist and homophobic founding fathers.
Slavery is very much a national institution in US history and a very, very shameful one that has also lead to decades of institutional racism in the US. Mr. Wilentz seems to be standing on the technicality that the US Constitution itself did not explicitly authorize slavery. However every provision necessary for slavery to exist was written into the US Constitution by the slave-holding, slavery-loving, racist, sexist and homophobic founding fathers.
19
The slaves freed in Washington's will were in fact freed. But not all the slaves at Mt Vernon belonged to either of the adult Washingtons. Some belonged to her children, and these he could not legally free.
1
Some might have objected to the three fifths clause, but the fact remains the three fifths clause is in the Constitution, and any alternative is not. So it's Constitutional. Period.
12
Slave states wanted slaves to be counted as a whole person. This was not because they wanted any rights for the slaves but for more representatives in congress so they would have more power. It was about power not people. Slave states did not consider their slaves to be people. Ask John Lewis and others that were beaten and killed in the marches to obtain reasonable voter rights in former slave states if they were/are racists.
But wouldn't an even more abolitionist position have been for the Constitution to count slaves as 0% of a person, rather than allowing the southern states to claim Congressional seats (and national power) based on large populations of enslaved people who had no rights as citizens? In other words, had the Constitution not included the 3/5 clause, it would have meant even greater entrenchment of slavery and power for slave states.
1
Britain abolished slavery in 1838. It is hard to comprehend , now, that anyone could think it was acceptable.
6
And so many in this country couldn't comprehend, in 1787 and certainly by 1860, that it was acceptable. Adam Hochschild's excellent book "Bury the Chains" talks about the rapid sea-change in public opinion that led to British abolition of slavery, and the role of economic changes. People have a tendency to seek ideological justification for whatever supports their perceived economic foundation, and that was certainly the case in the U.S. The virulently racist ideas that dominated this country well after the Civil War, even into the mid-20th century (and among too many people today) had been deliberately created and actively promoted - in the face of mounting abolitionist efforts, here and abroad - purely to justify maintaining an economic institution that big, politically-powerful landowners didn't want to give up. It's ironic, and tragic, that the racism lives on even as its economic context is long gone.
1
But "now' was not "then". A myriad of things thought unacceptable now were acceptable "then," and many things universally accepted today will be unacceptable tomorrow. As noted in the article, many at the Convention fought and achieved a path to the elimination of slavery in the Constitution and avoided it being perpetuated indefinitely. It is appropriate to point out the limitations and contradictions of the times as we now perceive them from our elevated perch as moralists and the benefit of hindsight, but to condemn men who created a democracy, even if imperfect, out of whole cloth at a time when monarchy and despotism were and had been the universal practice since humans first walked the earth is petty backbiting and not good scholarship.
23
Professor Wilentz, a brilliant and respected historian, is right that northern delegates to the constitutional convention as well as Madison fought to make the constitution at least neutral on the subject of slavery, to enable people of the future to abolish slavery in time. But Southerners interpreted the constitution differently, as did some of the late abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison. He called the constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," and he urged the North to secede from the Union under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders." To Garrison, slavery was a national sin, a national crime, for which all Americans were guilty. In 1857, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney read into the constitution the southern view that property in slaves was protected by the constitution nationwide, and Congress had no power to ban slavery anywhere. The Dred Scott ruling affirmed the southern position that masters had a right to their slave property wherever they chose to travel in the United States, and they could continue to hold slaves even in free states or territories. I think that the Dred Scott decision made slavery a national institution, probably contrary to the intentions of most of the framers of the constitution. It took the Reconstruction amendments to reverse this and to make the constitution firmly, clearly anti-slavery.
22
Thank you Professor for this objective, well reasoned and nuanced piece based on actual facts.
As of 5:51 AM there are no comments. I'll be interested to read them as they are posted. However, I fear that this won't sit well in our present environment, which seeks to rewrite our history - not for the benefit of the privileged and powerful - but for the opposite goal - the idea that the United States and its Constitution are the worst things ever perpetrated on mankind.
This latter view used to be a fringe one. But it has more than gained traction. Unthinking people like the sound of the conclusions - like Sanders' pandering statement - but there's no argument or facts behind them.
Strange times.
As of 5:51 AM there are no comments. I'll be interested to read them as they are posted. However, I fear that this won't sit well in our present environment, which seeks to rewrite our history - not for the benefit of the privileged and powerful - but for the opposite goal - the idea that the United States and its Constitution are the worst things ever perpetrated on mankind.
This latter view used to be a fringe one. But it has more than gained traction. Unthinking people like the sound of the conclusions - like Sanders' pandering statement - but there's no argument or facts behind them.
Strange times.
8
It is a mistake to think that there is a movement the idea "that the United States and its Constitution are the worst things ever perpetrated on mankind." is well off the mark. I believe that even among the framers of our Constitution there was belief that slavery should have been outlawed as it was a discussing racist practice.
That Bernie Sanders, who has a long history of advocating for civil rights, uses our history while he runs for president to hopefully gain traction with the black community is no surprise. That the New York Times takes him to task on this is, to me at least, is a sign that he his becoming a nuisance to the Clinton candidacy. Imagine someone running to HRC's left and making inroads.
That Bernie Sanders, who has a long history of advocating for civil rights, uses our history while he runs for president to hopefully gain traction with the black community is no surprise. That the New York Times takes him to task on this is, to me at least, is a sign that he his becoming a nuisance to the Clinton candidacy. Imagine someone running to HRC's left and making inroads.
That it was created on racists principles is of no doubt. It was 3/5ths a man or uncounted based on race. Bernie Sanders was correct.
7
Concluding that the 3/5's rule established a principle is a simplistic misreading of the document. That particular rule had more to do with limiting the power of the slave holding states than permitting slavery, which the document does not explicitly do. Indeed, its structure allowed Congress to act beginning in 1808 to outlaw the practice and importation of more slaves and its expansion into new territories.
2
The infamous 3/5 clause was actually a qualified victory for states in which slavery had been abolished or was on the way out.
The clause was NOT put there to enshrine the notion that enslaved people weren't fully human, it was put there to LIMIT the slave states' ability to use their enslaved populations for purposes of calculating the number of representatives they were due in the House of Representatives.
Slave state leaders would have been all-too-happy to have had each (nonvoting, disenfranched) slave counted the same as a free white resident for purposes of apportioning representatives. It would have given them even greater representation in the federal government, one even more out-of-proportion to the size of their voting populations than what they actually obtained.
The clause was NOT put there to enshrine the notion that enslaved people weren't fully human, it was put there to LIMIT the slave states' ability to use their enslaved populations for purposes of calculating the number of representatives they were due in the House of Representatives.
Slave state leaders would have been all-too-happy to have had each (nonvoting, disenfranched) slave counted the same as a free white resident for purposes of apportioning representatives. It would have given them even greater representation in the federal government, one even more out-of-proportion to the size of their voting populations than what they actually obtained.
Sorry but it was all racist. No one at the time was arguing that enslaved Africans or their progeny were equal as humans.
Fascinating.
If true, this really calls into question the conventional view and what is being taught in schools.
Seems pretty important to get this right.
If true, this really calls into question the conventional view and what is being taught in schools.
Seems pretty important to get this right.
1
Wow, the Constitution was so clear about slavery that the issue could not be decided on a constitutional basis, and the US fought a civil war over it, with some 750K deaths!
It really doesn't matter what Sean Wilentz thinks today, we can always tack our own meaning to any text; how did the Americans of the 1850s interpret the Constitution, and why couldn't they agree what the constitution said about slavery?
It really doesn't matter what Sean Wilentz thinks today, we can always tack our own meaning to any text; how did the Americans of the 1850s interpret the Constitution, and why couldn't they agree what the constitution said about slavery?
10
In 1850 they couldn't agree on what the constitution said about slavery because it said little, and allowed different states to create their own justifications (or not) for slavery. I think Wilentz's point is not that the constitution was explicitly against slavery -- not at all, otherwise our history would have been radically different -- but that the constitution, unlike what some claim today, did not officially sanction and approve slavery, and that one reason for this was the desire for committed anti-slavery and committed pro-slavery people, gathered at the Constitutional Congress, to agree on a document.
3
I'll just quote from elsewhere: "The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union."
That his point, the slave owners seceded, because they would not allow that limitations or change be imposed, based on constitutional principles.
While Senator Sanders is technically incorrect, as the author goes to great lengths to explain, the roots of our nation go back almost 200 years prior to the Constitution.
Slavery was an integral part of the colonial period.
The 3/5 clause was crucial to establishing dominance by the slave states.
The southern states had more House members and electoral votes due to the 3/5 clause. Most of the early presidents came from the south.
In order to form our Union, concessions had to be made to the slave owners.
The first 70 years of our nation was spent trying to accommodate the slave states, with the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 prime examples.
The rapid expansion of our nation after the Mexican War brought the issue of the westward expansion of slavery to a head.
Slavery was an integral part of the colonial period.
The 3/5 clause was crucial to establishing dominance by the slave states.
The southern states had more House members and electoral votes due to the 3/5 clause. Most of the early presidents came from the south.
In order to form our Union, concessions had to be made to the slave owners.
The first 70 years of our nation was spent trying to accommodate the slave states, with the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 prime examples.
The rapid expansion of our nation after the Mexican War brought the issue of the westward expansion of slavery to a head.
118
Actually for Senator Sanders to say that the country was founded on racist principles is correct. Ask the original settlers who were swept aside by European immigrants.
Imagine the power the slave state would have had if slaves were counted as a whole person which the Slave states wanted, for power of course.
2
Sean Wilentz's article is another attempt to whitewash the fact that slavery -- America's Original Sin -- was an integral part the United States.
The Constitution of the United States, by its silence on the outright rejection of slavery, permitted the establishment of slavery as a national institution. Sean forgets the maxim "Qui tacet consentiret," and Thomas More described it as the maxim of the law, meaning silence gives consent.
The Constitution of the United States, by its silence on the outright rejection of slavery, permitted the establishment of slavery as a national institution. Sean forgets the maxim "Qui tacet consentiret," and Thomas More described it as the maxim of the law, meaning silence gives consent.
102
Just as the Constitution was silent on the outright rejection of slavery, religions of all kinds flourished when the Constitution was also silent on the establishment a national religion. Where voices are silent, issues flourish, both evil and otherwise.
1
America's original sin, in my opinion, was the genocide of the people who were here before the colonists arrived.
2
It is exactly your imprecise use of words and logic against which this author writes. You say that 'The Constitution of the United States...permitted the establishment of slavery as a national institution.' Wrong! This article details how the authors of our constitution kept out wording that explicitly condoned slavery, and in fact included language that would allow the national government to regulate the slave trade by 1808, which would give it a chance to kill it.
The Constitution enabled slavery as a STATE institution, and set the stage to abolish it at a national level once possible. That much is clear, and any other interpretation is a willful misreading of the document and history - a misreading fueled by the current liberal PC hysteria that exalts feelings and 'the oppressed' over facts and truth.
The Constitution enabled slavery as a STATE institution, and set the stage to abolish it at a national level once possible. That much is clear, and any other interpretation is a willful misreading of the document and history - a misreading fueled by the current liberal PC hysteria that exalts feelings and 'the oppressed' over facts and truth.
2
Barack's call in Rev. Pinckney's eulogy, for "generosity,"--this is classic confusion--and deliberate calculation--is to fix history the way arguments about social security, the budget, the security, executive privilege, states rights, taxes, and gun laws are fixed: to take advantage of a lie.
Begin with letters among the merchants, planters, officers, officials, ship builders, delegates to the series of committees, conferences, meetings, and votes that twice established the culture of national government, what they concealed and said, establishing the value of political secrets described by Thoreau, Stowe, Calhoun, Ben Tillman, King and Barack Obama. At a recent eulogy only one of 17 GOP candidates attended, for the 9 Charleston martyrs ( a fail rate of ((9 x 17)-1!), when Congress and Washington came by the plane loads.
It fails to consider the abundant evidence of self-examination on the questions and the inherent attitudes expressed.
Its cutest outrage is to mistake a document for governance, the same way the bible is mistaken for God. Bewildering, it skips over the slavery giant, Maryland Chief Justice Roger Tawney, who finally left to argue not the institution's inclusion in the constitution, and more importantly, the case of constitutionality declared by constitutional law, white supremacy and negro chattel invoilate. His brilliant, but flawed ruling in Dred Scott establishes the best case against this nonsense.
These letters (Washington, Jefferson, SC's Laurens)
Begin with letters among the merchants, planters, officers, officials, ship builders, delegates to the series of committees, conferences, meetings, and votes that twice established the culture of national government, what they concealed and said, establishing the value of political secrets described by Thoreau, Stowe, Calhoun, Ben Tillman, King and Barack Obama. At a recent eulogy only one of 17 GOP candidates attended, for the 9 Charleston martyrs ( a fail rate of ((9 x 17)-1!), when Congress and Washington came by the plane loads.
It fails to consider the abundant evidence of self-examination on the questions and the inherent attitudes expressed.
Its cutest outrage is to mistake a document for governance, the same way the bible is mistaken for God. Bewildering, it skips over the slavery giant, Maryland Chief Justice Roger Tawney, who finally left to argue not the institution's inclusion in the constitution, and more importantly, the case of constitutionality declared by constitutional law, white supremacy and negro chattel invoilate. His brilliant, but flawed ruling in Dred Scott establishes the best case against this nonsense.
These letters (Washington, Jefferson, SC's Laurens)
13
"Inviolate." "Taney." Strike the last line. Thanks.
Begins Taney's argument:
". . neither the legislative, executive, nor judicial departments can lawfully exercise any authority beyond the limits marked out by the Constitution. . . . the cases in which the courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction are particularly and specifically enumerated and defined; . . Hence, when a plaintiff sues in a court of the United States, it is necessary that he should show, in his pleading, that the suit he brings is within the jurisdiction of the court, and that he is entitled to sue there."
The Court accepted the case. Taney set forth his ruling as the Constitutional regulation of citizenship--eliminating any rights by "Negroes" (slave or free!) that white men were "bound to respect." By name, attribute, and law of the constitution--slavery was a federally established and protected practice.
"We refer to these historical facts for the purpose of showing the fixed opinions concerning that race, upon which the statesmen of that day spoke and acted. . . to determine whether the general terms used in the Constitution of the United States . . . intended to include them, or their posterity. . .
". . .two clauses in the Constitution which point directly and specifically to the negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the Government then formed."
(The full text is easily found online.)
Begins Taney's argument:
". . neither the legislative, executive, nor judicial departments can lawfully exercise any authority beyond the limits marked out by the Constitution. . . . the cases in which the courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction are particularly and specifically enumerated and defined; . . Hence, when a plaintiff sues in a court of the United States, it is necessary that he should show, in his pleading, that the suit he brings is within the jurisdiction of the court, and that he is entitled to sue there."
The Court accepted the case. Taney set forth his ruling as the Constitutional regulation of citizenship--eliminating any rights by "Negroes" (slave or free!) that white men were "bound to respect." By name, attribute, and law of the constitution--slavery was a federally established and protected practice.
"We refer to these historical facts for the purpose of showing the fixed opinions concerning that race, upon which the statesmen of that day spoke and acted. . . to determine whether the general terms used in the Constitution of the United States . . . intended to include them, or their posterity. . .
". . .two clauses in the Constitution which point directly and specifically to the negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the Government then formed."
(The full text is easily found online.)
7
I like your comments, Mr. Rhett, but are the Republicans really your idea of Grand Old Party?
Thanks for your great comment(s). I am with you and Bernie Sanders that the US was founded on racist principles. We can, and have, overcome some of these practices but still have a long way to go.
So your basic argument is that, because the enslavers didn't get everything they wanted into the Constitution, that "slavery is no national institution."
But they did get the right to enslave their fellow human beings, to whip, brutalize, rape, and kill them without consequence.
This was sanctioned by the U.S. Constitution, it was agreed to by all present, and remained the law of the land for the next 90 years.
Slavery was not just a "powerful institution": it enabled the growth of the U.S. It was an economic engine for this nation, every bit as essential to prosperity at the time as oil is today.
Every bit of our lives today, all our history, is tarnished by this nation's embrace of slavery and its ongoing efforts to allow the exploitation of workers, especially, but not limited to, minorities.
One sentence stands out as an example of cognitive dissonance: "It [the exclusion from the Constitution of the idea that there could be property in man] was so well understood in 1860 that it provoked the Civil War." Clearly, it wasn't that well understood. It still isn't today.
But they did get the right to enslave their fellow human beings, to whip, brutalize, rape, and kill them without consequence.
This was sanctioned by the U.S. Constitution, it was agreed to by all present, and remained the law of the land for the next 90 years.
Slavery was not just a "powerful institution": it enabled the growth of the U.S. It was an economic engine for this nation, every bit as essential to prosperity at the time as oil is today.
Every bit of our lives today, all our history, is tarnished by this nation's embrace of slavery and its ongoing efforts to allow the exploitation of workers, especially, but not limited to, minorities.
One sentence stands out as an example of cognitive dissonance: "It [the exclusion from the Constitution of the idea that there could be property in man] was so well understood in 1860 that it provoked the Civil War." Clearly, it wasn't that well understood. It still isn't today.
306
I think you're trying way too hard here. They already had the right to enslave their fellow men. The Constitution didn't ban it outright, but it certainly didn't enshrine it. And your notion that it was essential to the nation's growth and prosperity is wrong. It played a role, yes, but most laborers in the country were free.
33
I think Mr. Hill is trying way too hard here when he states that since: "most laborers in the country were free", therefore slavery only "played a role" in our "nation's growth and prosperity".
The invention of the cotton gin was the catalyst for the economic growth of the South after 1790. The factories in the North were dependent on cotton for trade and textiles.
Cotton futures were traded on Wall Street, which expanded from under a buttonwood tree to a financial colossus.
Fortunes were made in land speculation in Indian lands that became the states of Alabama and Mississippi. Future President Andrew Jackson was one such speculator.
Senator Sanders is technically incorrect in stating that our nation was created based on the institution of slavery.
The roots of our nation, however, go back beyond 1787. The first slaves were brought to the Virginia colony in 1619.
The invention of the cotton gin was the catalyst for the economic growth of the South after 1790. The factories in the North were dependent on cotton for trade and textiles.
Cotton futures were traded on Wall Street, which expanded from under a buttonwood tree to a financial colossus.
Fortunes were made in land speculation in Indian lands that became the states of Alabama and Mississippi. Future President Andrew Jackson was one such speculator.
Senator Sanders is technically incorrect in stating that our nation was created based on the institution of slavery.
The roots of our nation, however, go back beyond 1787. The first slaves were brought to the Virginia colony in 1619.
29
No his argument is that the pro-slavery got very little of what they wanted.
5
I quote the author; 'Yet the myth that the United States was founded on racial slavery persists, notably among scholars and activists on the left who are rightly angry at America’s racist past'; sorry you didn't mention the present in this statement. The whites racist attitudes against the black body in America is alive and well in this country today. Let us face it.
178
Are you condemning white people here as a group? How is that qualitatively different from having attitudes against the black body?
3
White racist attitudes in the US are marginal a best. A sea change since the 1960s. Those who disagree have a vested interest in wanting it to be as you perceive it from afar.
BTW, are young women in your country secure from violence these day? How's that going?
BTW, are young women in your country secure from violence these day? How's that going?
6
While I agree with many of Mr. Sanders positions, I do not believe he has the temperament to lead the US as President!
His place is in the Senate!
His place is in the Senate!
4
Richard,
The country is going down the tubes because of what people believe. Dr Carson believes that science is a lie because it doesn't uphold ancient Hebrew allegory. Donald believes what Donald believes. Hillary believes sailing with the wind will take us where we need to go. Bernie believes in social democracy. JEB! is a Patrician and believes in Patriarchy. Huckabee believes in post-enlightenment Christianity. Cruz believes in the voices in his head. GWB believed in the gurgles in his gut.
We need to examine where we are and what solutions might take us where we have to go and only Bernie is working with a map and a GPS.
The country is going down the tubes because of what people believe. Dr Carson believes that science is a lie because it doesn't uphold ancient Hebrew allegory. Donald believes what Donald believes. Hillary believes sailing with the wind will take us where we need to go. Bernie believes in social democracy. JEB! is a Patrician and believes in Patriarchy. Huckabee believes in post-enlightenment Christianity. Cruz believes in the voices in his head. GWB believed in the gurgles in his gut.
We need to examine where we are and what solutions might take us where we have to go and only Bernie is working with a map and a GPS.
1
And you base this just on his statement on slavery?
3
One might have said the same of Teddy Roosevelt.
2
This piece makes me think the Constitution is like Scripture: we find what we want to find. Our national struggles with race, so public since Ferguson, have naturally focused us on the injustice done African-Americans. While never forgetting that, it's also important to remember that our national fight to live up to our highest ideals of equality also date from our founding, and provide a rich vein of historical hope as we continue the battle.
49
Is not three-fifths of a person clause for the purpose of the census a codified confirmation that slaves were not considered to be created equal>
126
More a confirmation that political compromise tainted the soup, I think.
10
No it is not. It is smply a cmpromise. The southern states wanted to count each of their slaves, though they had no rights whatsover, as one person, to define the size of their population, which would then determine the number of representatives they would get in the House. Virginia, for instance, would have gotten even more representatives than they got under the three-fifth compomise. The northerners obviously wanted to completely leave the slaves out of the count, which in my mind was right thing to do, since the slaves were not treated as hunam beings at all, but merely as property, like horses.
2
Actually. no. Slaveholders, who certainly didn't consider them equal, wanted them counted 100% per head - to boost the apportionment of representatives to slave states. Other states resisted. The 3/5 rule was the compromise.
2
I strongly disagree with the suggestion here that, on the issue of slavery, the hearts and minds of Northerners were morally pure.
78
If you insist upon purity, then no one will ever do good. The Northern states abolished slavery early on, and then fought to abolish it on the national level. The Southern states did not. And it is wrong to efface that distinction just because there were northerners who favored or tolerated slavery, or southerners who opposed it (some of whom, paradoxically, owned slaves themselves).
53
Agree with Josh. If we are going to condemn our founders for the moral failing of practicing, promoting or tolerating slavery, then we also have to credit the northern states for sacrificing hundreds of thousands of their youth to defeat the Confederacy and end slavery. Certainly a moral debt was paid, if however modestly, by a young nation that went to war and lost 2.5% of its population - 7 million people in today's numbers - with the end result being emancipation. Other nations that practiced or supported slavery or the slave trade - Britain, for example, until 1833 (mostly) - treated the moral dilemma as a political compromise in phases to minimize the economic impact. It is fair to criticize the Constitution's drafters for their treatment of slavery - in 1787 in Philadelphia, slavery, a poweful institution, was known by many to be morally wrong - but we do need to be careful about judging their actions by the standards of today. Cultural relativism is a slippery slope, but nonetheless, will be judged someday for the moral failings of our own current practices that we may believe today to be acceptable, and even virtuous.
4
I agree with michjas. The North was not morally pure on this one since the nation operated an integrated economy, and the South was in no way isolated from economic activities and infrastructure in the North. Northern industry had no problem using the relatively inexpensive raw materials sourced from the South and its slave labor. As with current debates on the minimum wage, cheap or free labor leads to lower costs of goods throughout the supply chain. And the major banks and insurance industries concentrated in the North also profited and allowed economic growth of the young nation as a whole through their respective economic functions. That growth and wealth would have been lessened without the cheap raw materials low cost labor through slavery provided.
2
How little I know! You say the three-fifths rule did not apply to the Senate? How did that work?
8
At that time, Senators were elected by their respective state legislatures.
The 3/5 Rule gave the southern states disproportionate representation in the House, and therefore more power.
The southern states also had more electoral votes and most of the early presidents came from slave holding states.
The 3/5 Rule gave the southern states disproportionate representation in the House, and therefore more power.
The southern states also had more electoral votes and most of the early presidents came from slave holding states.
7
The number of Senators was apportioned to each state as a whole; it is only the House that has its apportionment tied to population.
2
I think he means that each state got two senators, regardless of the size of its population. However, the number of House representatives depends on the state's population. The more people, including slaves counted as three-fifths of a person, the more Representatives it got.
1
The more I read about the Constitutional Convention, the more I am amazed that anyone can say the courts today should adhere to "the original intent of the Framers". Their intents were all over the place, and the Constitution that emerged was the best they could do to get something for ratification at all. And the contending interests came out of the Convention with wildly different views of what they had done. As for slavery, it looks like they tried their best to avoid it, knowing there was little chance of agreement on a specified position, and better to have a constitution that was vague than none at all.
In the end, considering our national experience with this constitution, we have done better than might be expected. Humans getting together to rule themselves has never been a clear and easy undertaking. Look at how many new nations fall apart, or fall into the hands of parties that take over and trash the place. The best thing about ours is that we have kept going, working things out, not always well, but so far still going on.
In the end, considering our national experience with this constitution, we have done better than might be expected. Humans getting together to rule themselves has never been a clear and easy undertaking. Look at how many new nations fall apart, or fall into the hands of parties that take over and trash the place. The best thing about ours is that we have kept going, working things out, not always well, but so far still going on.
235
I'm afraid that our government has indeed fallen into the hands of parties that have taken over and are trashing the place. Literally.
4
.
@ felecha,
As you have intuited, those "original intent" Supremes have given themselves the power to come up with any conclusion they want.
@ felecha,
As you have intuited, those "original intent" Supremes have given themselves the power to come up with any conclusion they want.
1
Actually, as a first resort, Constitutional interpretation should be the plain meaning of the words. If unclear, then the intent of those who wrote it (Madison, Hamilton and Governour Morris) and/or those who debated and agreed to it.
If not that, then what? You don't pose an alternative. But, if you did, then how is that alternative even legitimate? Is it felecha's way?
At least the Consitution was ratified by special State ratifying conventions. And though they were a long time ago, the document has within in it methods for amending it. Legitimacy.
Also to your point, the men at the convention on September 17, 1787 (tomorrow is the anniversary) weren't really "all over the place." The one thing they fixed and fixed well was the existing national government. It was pathetic. One branch, a congress, no military, no executive, no courts, no way to raise money. If they did nothing, 13 nation states would have evolved.
Then, the southern states would have settled the issue of slavery to their liking. So in the long run the slavery issue had a better resolution albeit delayed with blood, sweat, tears.
If not that, then what? You don't pose an alternative. But, if you did, then how is that alternative even legitimate? Is it felecha's way?
At least the Consitution was ratified by special State ratifying conventions. And though they were a long time ago, the document has within in it methods for amending it. Legitimacy.
Also to your point, the men at the convention on September 17, 1787 (tomorrow is the anniversary) weren't really "all over the place." The one thing they fixed and fixed well was the existing national government. It was pathetic. One branch, a congress, no military, no executive, no courts, no way to raise money. If they did nothing, 13 nation states would have evolved.
Then, the southern states would have settled the issue of slavery to their liking. So in the long run the slavery issue had a better resolution albeit delayed with blood, sweat, tears.
3
There is compromise and there is compromise, maybe if it is agreed that the Northern delegates " won" however compromised that win , we can get on with making lives matter. The Catholics could even allow same sex marriage yet still forever point to certain unambiguous phrases in their God's word and feel they serve a purpose .
2
The senate was not elected by popular vote back then. Just the House.
1
CAtholic don't rely on "their God's word" if you mean by that Scripture alone. Catholics use sometimes tendentious reasoning to arrive at positions which can later be rejected because better evidence or improved ethical thinking came along.
1
Frederick Douglass's column from "The North Star," 16 Mar 1849-- http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-constitution-and...
"Had the Constitution dropped down from the blue overhanging sky, upon a land uncursed by slavery , and without an interpreter, ...so cunningly is it framed, that no one would have imagined that it recognized or sanctioned slavery. But having a terrestrial...origin, we find no difficulty in ascertaining its meaning in all the parts which we allege to relate to slavery. Slavery existed before the Constitution, in the very States by whom it was made and adopted. — Slaveholders took a large share in making it. It was made in view of the existence of slavery, and in a manner well calculated to aid and strengthen that heaven-daring crime.
...The parties that made the Constitution, aimed to cheat and defraud the slave, who was no himself a party to the compact or agreement. It was entered into understandingly on both sides. They both designed to purchase their freedom and safety at the expense of the imbruted slave. The North are willing to become the body guards of slavery — suppressing insurrection — returning fugitive slaves to bondage — importing slaves for twenty years, and as much longer as the Congress should see fit to leave it unprohibited, and virtually to give slaveholders three votes for ever five slaves they could plunder from Africa, and all this to form a Union by which to repel invasion, ..."
"Had the Constitution dropped down from the blue overhanging sky, upon a land uncursed by slavery , and without an interpreter, ...so cunningly is it framed, that no one would have imagined that it recognized or sanctioned slavery. But having a terrestrial...origin, we find no difficulty in ascertaining its meaning in all the parts which we allege to relate to slavery. Slavery existed before the Constitution, in the very States by whom it was made and adopted. — Slaveholders took a large share in making it. It was made in view of the existence of slavery, and in a manner well calculated to aid and strengthen that heaven-daring crime.
...The parties that made the Constitution, aimed to cheat and defraud the slave, who was no himself a party to the compact or agreement. It was entered into understandingly on both sides. They both designed to purchase their freedom and safety at the expense of the imbruted slave. The North are willing to become the body guards of slavery — suppressing insurrection — returning fugitive slaves to bondage — importing slaves for twenty years, and as much longer as the Congress should see fit to leave it unprohibited, and virtually to give slaveholders three votes for ever five slaves they could plunder from Africa, and all this to form a Union by which to repel invasion, ..."
227
Perhaps Mr. Wilentz would have done well to explore opposing points of view... Thanks for pointing this out.
JSK
Excellent reference!
Reading the entire article makes it crystal clear that Sean Wilentz did not accurately convey Douglas's opinion.
The link in your comment seems broken, so hopefully this one works a bit better.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-constitution-and...
Excellent reference!
Reading the entire article makes it crystal clear that Sean Wilentz did not accurately convey Douglas's opinion.
The link in your comment seems broken, so hopefully this one works a bit better.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-constitution-and...
1
Yes, but "In 1851 Douglass broke from Garrison's position that the U.S. Constitution was a pro-slavery document, and that the free states should peacefully secede from the union. In a letter to Smith he reported that he was “sick and tired of arguing on the slaveholder's side…” (Douglass [1851] 1999). Douglass sided with Gerrit Smith and the Liberty party's position that the United States' founding documents were anti-slavery.
In his most famous speech, ‘What To the Slave Is The Fourth of July?,’ he detailed what would come to be regarded as his signature positions, such as the view that slavery was unconstitutional and contrary to natural law, that blacks were self-evidently human and entitled to natural rights, and that slavery was contrary to the U.S. Constitution, American Republicanism, and Christian doctrine. He also began to defend violent resistance to slavery. Douglass's second autobiography, My Bondage and My Freedom, reflected these changes, and his expanding intellectual independence (Douglass 1994; for a stand-alone edition, see Douglass and Andrews 1987)."
In his most famous speech, ‘What To the Slave Is The Fourth of July?,’ he detailed what would come to be regarded as his signature positions, such as the view that slavery was unconstitutional and contrary to natural law, that blacks were self-evidently human and entitled to natural rights, and that slavery was contrary to the U.S. Constitution, American Republicanism, and Christian doctrine. He also began to defend violent resistance to slavery. Douglass's second autobiography, My Bondage and My Freedom, reflected these changes, and his expanding intellectual independence (Douglass 1994; for a stand-alone edition, see Douglass and Andrews 1987)."
2
This seems to settle things somewhat, but Oh what a settling. I've decided that as in the solution rendered theatrically in the play 1776, the proposition that compromise,as ugly a word as it is in certain touchy subjects, serves a purpose. Compromise is perhaps not the dirty word at all.
3
Despite the title of this piece, my conclusion is quite the opposite after reading. Three fifths indeed! And a sad reminder of the bigoted thinking of those on the so-called Supreme Court that have the chutzpah to declare themsleves orignalists. Donald Trump may have powerful allies in that esteemened institution.
58
Even if slavery is not explicitly enshrined in the constitution, the three-fifths rule and the fugitive "servant" provision are racist principles. Therefore it is accurate to say that the United States was created on racist principles.
290
Not very sophisticated thought. If you wanted to free the slaves and the best you could do was to free 3/5 of them, leaving 2/5 to suffer unconscionably, would that make you a racist?
The op-ed author is engaged in word play. This country is not founded on words alone. Try reading "The Half Has Never Been Told" by E. Baptist (2014) and "Ebony and Ivy" by Wilder (2013) to see how integrally slavery built this country and how full-throttle it ran (socially, economically, intellectually) before, during, and after the Constitution. The three-fifths provision favored dominance of the slaveholding South in national politics until the Civil War. Mr. Wilentz seems to want to make a point against Mr. Sanders but his weak conceptual fiddling reflects a failure to weigh in on serious history.
6
In order to maintain your ideological dogma you must ignore the facts. It was the pro-slavers who wanted slaves to be counted fully for purposes of apportionment, even though they denied slaves the vote or even citizenship for that matter. The three-fifths provision diluted power of the pro-slavers. You are arguing that to dilute the power of the slavers is racist. You would prefer that the slave owning states had greater political power with which they could have perpetuated slavery. Your argument is effectively pro-slavery.
12
It's a pleasure to see, for once, a rational voice citing facts in the Times editorial pages, refuting the most extreme claims made in the left's prosecution of the past.
28
This so-called rational voice is nothing but a quibble. According to the 1790 census, there were about 700,000 human beings enslaved in the new country. In 1860 there were about 4 million people enslaved. They were all either African or of African descent. This does not include the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of human beings who died in chains on the passage over to the colonies and then to the US. There is nothing you can do to paint that or the white people who lived in that era or the Constitution under which they lived as anything other than what it was - enablers of the system of slavery. You can deny it all you want. This issue was settled at Nuremberg after WWII. Many of us just haven't owned up to it yet.
7
If you look at the right's "christianization" of the founding fathers there are many parallels with this article.
1
I have no quarrel with any of the facts cited. However, if you read the piece, the issue addressed was whether or not the Constitution guaranteed a right to own slaves. You appear to think that retrospectively prosecuting the past enables one to indict everything and everyone with crimes against humanity.
3