The Middle States Debate Slavery and the Constitution

During the meeting of the Constitutional Convention, delegates from the Middle states opposed slavery with vehemence and moral righteousness rarely displayed by New Englanders. But, during the public debate over ratification of the Constitution, this opposition to slavery was muted. Without an asylum for runaway slaves such as Massachusetts, little attention centered on the fugitive-slave clause in the Middle states. Rather a gentlemanly, high-toned debate focused on the political consequences of the three-fifths clause and a slightly more emotional debate addressed the clause prohibiting Congress from closing the African slave trade before 1808.

__________________

Debates Over Slavery in General

During the public debate over ratification of the Constitution in the middle states, opposition to slavery was muted even though delegates from the Middle states in the Philadelphia Convention opposed slavery with vehemence and moral righteousness. One critic of the Constitution noted that the American character would continue to fall throughout the world while the nation continued a commerce “that can only be conducted upon rivers of human tears and blood.” A government built on a foundation of “the flagrant evil of Slavery” could only expect to fail. According to Antifederalists, Union with the Southern states would cost too high a price.

Debates Over the 3/5 Clause

Throughout the Middle States there was criticism and support for the three-fifths clause. Some argued it was a necessary accommodation to the southern states, while others maintained it benefitted the nation in general because of the revenue it generated due to the tax placed on each imported enslaved person.

Perhaps the best and also most tortured explanation of the dilemmas of the three-fifths clause is in Federalist #54. James Madison stated that “they partake of both these qualities; being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects, as property.”

Some critics of the three-fifths clause in the middle states, argued it would actually encourage the importation of enslaved peoples because of the potential increase the number of representatives in the House of representatives. Additionally, critics argued that it was an absurdity to include enslaved persons in a representation ratio since slaves had no vote nor a will of their own. Consequently, they ought not be counted at all.

Debates Over the Foreign Slave Trade

Federalists from the Middle states were unjustifiably optimistic that under the Constitution slavery would perish. They placed great confidence in the effect that the prohibition of the foreign slave trade would have on slavery itself, congratulating themselves that in twenty-one years the foreign slave trade would be prohibited and would ‘‘possess a degree of liberality and humanity which has been unknown during so many centuries, and which is yet unattained in so many parts of the globe.” Furthermore, all newly formed states would be under the control of Congress and optimistically believed slaves will never be introduced in new states. Steady progress toward gradual abolition was the goal; any attempt to speed up the process might jeopardize the emancipation movement. Antifederalists attacked the unlikely optimism of their opponents, arguing Congress merely had the option to prohibit the foreign slave trade in 1808, but it would have absolutely no power to abolish the institution of slavery itself.

Debates Over the Fugitive Slave Clause

Without an asylum for runaway slaves such as Massachusetts, little attention centered on the fugitive-slave clause in the Middle states. Although the Quakers were generally supportive of the Constitution, they were sympathetic to there being havens of freedom noting that the “Justice of Such an Assylim is supported by the Divine Law Deut[eronomy]: 23, 15–16 which . . . proving the Right of protection & of Protectors to slaves who Escape from their masters.”