Historical Questions:
Why did the founding fathers keep slavery in the Constitution if the
Declaration of Independence claimed, “all men are created equal?”
What are the international connections in the founders’ and historians’
interpretations of the issue of slavery in the Constitution?
Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787
John Rutledge
Delegate from:
South Carolina
Occupations:
Planter, Former
governor,
President of
South Carolina,
judge, Supreme
Court
Justice,
statesman,
Owned slaves:
Yes
Hugh
Williamson
Delegate from:
North Carolina
(b. in PA)
Occupations:
real estate,
doctor,
merchant, math
professor,
author
Owned slaves:
No
Luther Martin
Delegate from:
Maryland (b. in
NJ)
Occupations:
planter, lawyer,
Attorney
General,
statesman
Owned slaves:
Yes
The Philadelphia Constitutional Convention was where the Founding Fathers
gathered to write the Constitution. They had many debates over what the
new government should look like. This is where they decided to KEEP
SLAVERY. As you read the documents below, try to see if they thought
slavery represented a major contradiction.
Mr. John Rutledge: Religion and humanity [have] nothing to do with this question….
The true question at present is whether the Southern states shall or shall not be
parties to the Union. If the Northern states consult their [own] interest[s], they will
not oppose the increase of slaves, which will increase [their own] commodities.
Mr. Oliver Ellsworth: Let every state import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of
slavery are considerations belonging to the states themselves. What enriches a part
enriches the whole.
Mr. Hugh Williamson: Southern States could not be members of the Union if the [slave
trade ended]…it was wrong to force any thing down, not absolutely necessary, and
which any State must disagree to.
Mr. Benjamin Franklin: I agree to this Constitution with all its faults—if they are such—
because I think a general government necessary for us…. I doubt, too, whether any
other convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution; for, when
you assemble a number of men, to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you
inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of
opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a
perfect production be expected?…Thus I consent, sir, to this Constitution, because I
expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best. The opinions I have
had of its errors I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them
abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die.
Mr. Luther Martin: First, as five slaves are to be counted as three freemen in the
apportionment of representatives, such a clause would leave an encouragement to this
traffic [slave importation]. Second, slaves [through danger of insurrection] weakened
one part of the Union, which the other parts were bound to protect; the privilege of
importing them was therefore unreasonable. Third it was inconsistent with the
principles of the Revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a
feature in the Constitution.
Oliver Ellsworth:
Delegate from:
Connecticut
Occupations:
Lawyer: public
security interests,
lending and
investments;
mercantilist,
statesman
Owned slaves:
No
Benjamin
Franklin:
Delegate from:
Pennsylvania
Occupations:
Real estate,
lending and
investments,
publisher, author,
statesman, retired
Owned slaves:
No
Roger Sherman
Delegate from:
Connecticut (b.
in MA)
Occupations:
Lawyer,
Merchant,
Public Security
Interests,
Cobbler,
statesman,
Owned slaves:
No
Mr. Roger Sherman: As the states were now possessed of the right to import slaves, as
the public good did not require it to be taken from them, and as it was expedient to
have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme of government, [it’s] best to
leave the matter as we find it… The abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the
United States, the good sense of the several states would probably by degrees complete
it....
Mr. George Mason: The infernal trade originated in the avarice of British merchants.
The British government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it.
The present question concerns not the importing states alone, but the whole Union....
Maryland and Virginia, he said, had already prohibited the importation of slaves
expressly. North Carolina had done the same in substance. All this would be in vain if
South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to import. The Western people are already
calling out for slaves for their new lands, and will fill that country with slaves, if they can
be got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts and manufactures.
The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immigration of
whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. …By an inevitable chain of causes
and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities….In every point of
view, that the general government should have power to prevent the increase of
slavery.
References:
Farrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Digital History. Available at:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/documents/documents_p2.cfm?doc=310.
Franklin, Benjamin. “On the Federal Constitution.” 1787. Bartelby. Available at:
http://bartelby.net/268/8/11.html.
Lloyd, Gordon. ”Individual Biographies of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention.”
Teaching American History. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University.
Available at: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/delegates/.
Madison, James. The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, which framed the Constitution
of the United States of America, reported by James Madison, a delegate from the state
of Virginia. 1787. Avalon Project. Yale University. Available at:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp.
“Reading Like a Historian.” Stanford History Education Group. Available at:
http://sheg.stanford.edu/?q=node/45.
George Mason
Delegate from:
Virginia
Occupations:
planter, real
estate investor,
land owner,
statesman
Owned slaves:
Yes
Historical Questions:
Why did the founding fathers keep slavery in the Constitution if the
Declaration of Independence claimed, “all men are created equal?”
What are the international connections in the founders’ and historians’
interpretations of the issue of slavery in the Constitution?
Historian Interpretation #1 (Modified)
The men at the Constitutional Convention never considered getting rid of slavery. The
Revolutionary talk of freedom and equality had been left behind; Americans in general
and the men at the Convention in particular wanted a united, well-ordered, and
prosperous society in which private property—including slave property—would be
secure.
Source: John P. Kaminski, A Necessary Evil? Madison, Wisconsin: Madison House, 1995.
p.42. “Reading Like an Historian.” Stanford History Education Group. Available at:
http://sheg.stanford.edu/?q=node/45.
Historian Interpretation #2 (Modified)
The Founding Fathers’ racism [was] a barrier to antislavery. Here again Jefferson typified
the age. Jefferson suspected that blacks had lower intellectual abilities than did whites.
These suspicions, together with Jefferson’s fear that free blacks and free whites could
not live harmoniously in America, made him and others think that the only way Africans
could be free was if they were sent back to Africa.
Source: William Freehling, “The Founding Fathers and Slavery.” In Kermit Hall, Ed., The
Law of American Slavery. New York, NY: Garland Publishing, 1987. p. 221. “Reading Like
an Historian.” Stanford History Education Group. Available at:
http://sheg.stanford.edu/?q=node/45.
Historian Interpretation #3 (Modified)
Slavery hung over the Philadelphia Convention, threatening to divide northern and
southern delegates. Even though slavery existed by law in some of the northern states
in 1787, most people there favored its end. Southerners were more unsure about
whether to end slavery, both because they had significantly greater numbers of slaves
to deal with and because an end to [slavery] had important economic implications. The
result was compromise. The Founding Fathers were more determined to fashion a new
nation than they were to bring an end to slavery.
Source: Kermit Hall, The Law of American Slavery. New York, NY: Garland Publishing,
1987. p. xi. “Reading Like an Historian.” Stanford History Education Group. Available
at: http://sheg.stanford.edu/?q=node/45.
Textbook Interpretation (France) #4
The [U.S. Constitution], adopted on September 17, 1787 and modified and completed by
a series of amendments is still in use today….This republic was not yet completely
democratic: there was no universal suffrage (it would arrive little by little during the
19th century) and slavery would endure until 1861. But even so, the American winds of
change blew through Europe and inspired those who were excited about changing the
established order: the American example had an international impact.
Source: Frank, Robert and Zanghellini, Valery. Histoire: 2de. Paris: Belin, 1996.
Excerpted in: Lindaman, Dana and Kyle Ward. History Lessons: How Textbooks from
Around the World Portray U.S. History. New York: The New Press, 2004. p41-42.
Historian Interpretation #5
Neither slavery nor racial questions were ever at issue between Britain and America at
the time of the Revolution, as they might have been if the white Americans had rebelled
a half-century later. It may be noted in passing that many white Americans were
already uneasy about the enslavement of Africans and that they suppressed the
question in order to maintain unity among themselves. It was not the Americans, but
the French, at the height of their own revolution in 1794, who were the first to abolish
slavery. In this respect, as in others, the French Revolution went further than the
American in equalitarian and humanitarian principles, though it was easier for the
French to abolish slavery, which existed only in their colonies, than it would have been
for the Americans to do so in their own country.
Source: R.R. Palmer, “The Revolution” from The Comparative Approach to American
History 1968 by C. Vann Woodward. In Guarneri, Carl J. ed. America Compared:
American History in International Perspective. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company,
2005. p114.