Why Was Slavery Not Constitutional

978 Words4 Pages

This paper will look at two very important issues framing the antebellum period, “Was the abolition of slavery constitutional” and “Was secession constitutional.” I believe that the abolition of slavery was not constitutional. When the Constitution was written in 1787, specific issues pertaining to slavery were mentioned in the document. This is an important point because although the word slavery is not stated, it is clear by the language and the specificity used, the architectures of the Constitution were referring to slaves. Therefore, if the Constitution refers to slaves, then the only way to end slavery, would be to change the Constitution. Three Articles / Sections that refer to slavery specific items are located in Article I, Section 2, pertaining to how state representation would work; Article I, Section 9, referring to the taxing and prohibiting Congress from stopping the importation of slaves for 20 years; and Article IV, Section 2, with the establishment of a Fugitive Slave Clause. ARTICLE I, SECTION 2: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, …show more content…

One of the first stumbling blocks was how small states would be represented. The Compromise worked out was for the House of Representatives to be based upon population and the Senate to be equal among the states. This was very important because it would both affect the number of electoral votes and taxes paid to the federal government. With so many slaves in the South, the issue was, “should slaves be counted?” It was agreed upon that that slaves would be counted as three-fifths a person for both representation and taxation and clarifies adding whole numbers of free persons and three-fifths of all other persons. This statement refers to