Although there were some instances of manumission during the Revolutionary Period, by 1787 the rhetoric of freedom and equality had been left behind. Americans in general and the delegates at the Philadelphia Convention in particular wanted a well-ordered, and prosperous society in which private property—including slave property—would be secure. Despite the sectionalism that divided the country, the impulse for union was so great that the delegates at the convention tabled almost entirely any discussion regarding the morality of slavery. Instead, they reconciled the fundamental differences in American society through numerous compromises. The most notable were the compromises over the three-fifths, foreign trade of the enslaved, and the fugitive slave clauses. Only a handful of delegates raised moral questions about the institution of slavery.
_______________________
The Debates in the Philadelphia Convention over the Institution of Slavery
To modern sensibilities it is surprising there was little discussion regarding the moral considerations of slavery. Delegates were faced with the task of reorganizing a viable government or potentially risk splitting the Union into separate confederacies, or the possibility of a restoration of monarchy and the downfall of the republic. Consequently, only a handful of delegates addressed the moral stain of the institution of slavery.
- Gouverneur Morris: Speech in the Philadelphia Convention, 8 August 1787
- George Mason: Speech in the Philadelphia Convention, 22 August 1787
- Oliver Ellsworth: Speech in the Philadelphia Convention, 22 August 1787
- Charles Cotesworth Pinckney: Speech in the Philadelphia Convention, 22 August 1787
- John Dickinson: Speech in the Philadelphia Convention, 22 August 1787
The Debates in the Philadelphia Convention over the 3/5 Clause
The organization of Congress was the first and one of the most difficult problems faced by the Constitutional Convention. The large states (Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania) wanted a bicameral Congress with representation based on either population or wealth. The smaller states wanted to retain the equal representation of the states either in a strengthened unicameral Congress as under the Articles of Confederation or in a bicameral Congress. If population was to be the method of apportioning representation among the states, the status of slaves would have to be determined. The North did not want slaves to be counted in apportioning representatives; the South wanted all of the slaves to be counted. This impasse was finally resolved with a compromise. Three-fifths of the slaves would be counted in apportioning both representation and direct taxation.
The Debates in the Philadelphia Convention over the Foreign Slave Trade
Delegates at the Philadelphia Convention acknowledged the Constitution was an imperfect document. The inadequacies of the document reflected the fundamental differences that divided American society. Two provisions in the new Constitution generating significant debate dealing directly with slavery was the provisions that stipulated the foreign slave trade could not be prohibited before 1808. Also, a tax would be levied on imported slaves, but it could not exceed ten dollars per slave. This provision would prove to be the most controversial clause concerning the institution of slavery during the ratification debates.
The Debates in the Philadelphia Convention over the Fugitive Slave Clause
Another provision in the Constitution directly impacting the enslaved population was that runaway slaves had to be returned to their masters “on demand” and could not be emancipated. Although the Articles of Confederation did not contain an analogous provision, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 did stipulating, “That any person escaping into the [territory], 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. The Ordinance abolished slavery in the Territory but also provided for the return of fugitive slaves who escaped there. Since this notion was known to the delegates at the convention, it may explain why it did not generate as much debate as other provisions regarding slavery.