The New England States Debate Slavery and the Constitution

New England delegates to the Constitutional Convention readily accepted constitutional provisions that safeguarded slavery and enhanced the position of the Southern states in the new federal Union. In exchange for these concessions, the delegates from the southernmost states made commercial concessions to New England. New England delegates in essence divorced questions about slavery from morality. This willingness of New England delegates to tolerate, condone, and even reward slaveholding was not shared by many of their constituents during the debate over the ratification of the Constitution. Thus, the debates in New England about the provisions in the Constitution regarding slavery revolved around the question of whether these provisions were a “necessary evil” for the continuation of the union.

_______________________________

Debates Over Slavery in General

In 1783, Massachusetts, through a court decision, abolished slavery. Justice William Cushing speaking for the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared slavery to be inconsistent with the provisions of the state Constitution. Despite the decision, slavery persisted in Massachusetts for several years until no slaves were reported in the 1790 federal census. At the Philadelphia Convention, New England delegates divorced questions about slavery from morality. This willingness of New England delegates to tolerate, condone, and even reward slaveholding was not shared by many of their constituents during the debate over the ratification of the Constitution.

Perhaps the most conscientious opponents of the Constitution in New England were Quakers. Most influential in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, Quakers strongly objected to the slave provisions of the Constitution. (See Quaker Opposition to Constitutional Provisions Concerning Slavery)

Debates Over the 3/5 Clause

New England Antifederalists, particularly those in Massachusetts, objected to the three-fifths clause, which allotted representation in the House of Representatives and apportioned direct taxation on the basis of population, counting three-fifths of the slaves in these computations. They argued that since slaves were considered property, they should not be considered in considerations of representation. Because Massachusetts had no slaves and other New England states had few, the massive numbers of slaves in the Southern states would disproportionately weigh against the influence of New England in the U.S. House of Representatives. Furthermore, since Federalists argued that direct taxation would not be necessary except in crises, Southern states faced no imminent tax burden under the three-fifths clause. Thus, New England would “receive no kind of benefit” from the three-fifths clause.

New England Federalists countered the attack on the three-fifths clause by suggesting that slaves were not to be represented nor were slaveowners themselves to receive extra representation. Population was merely a convenient method for determining the relative strength of the states. Eleven states had previously ratified an amendment to the Articles of Confederation that would apportion federal expenses based on population counting three-fifths of the slaves. According to Federalists, “it was the language of America, “and as such the Confederation Congress had implemented this change in its 1786 requisition on the states.

Debates Over the Foreign Slave Trade

Perhaps the most emotional debate in New England over slavery and the Constitution focused on the provision that prohibited Congress from closing the African slave trade before 1808. Federalists pointed out that, despite the twenty-year restriction on Congress, the states themselves faced no limitation whatsoever. Federalists argued that the Constitution was a considerable improvement over the Articles of Confederation, which gave Congress no authority to restrict or prohibit the African slave trade. Some Federalists went so far as to predict that this provision would naturally lead to the gradual and eventual total abolition of slavery.

Opponents of the Constitution could not see any justification continuing the foreign slave trade. New England Antifederalists vehemently argued that the “doctrine of imputed guilt” meant that they were partakers in the sin slavery of as that of slave holders. “

Federalists disagreed with the doctrine of imputed guilt. Such a doctrine would force Massachusetts, for instance, to disconnect itself from every state in the Union because all, except for Massachusetts, still allowed slavery. Federalists readily acknowledged the imperfection of the Constitution. Concessions had to be granted to assure the permanence of the Union and the stability and well-being of the economy. After the ratification and implementation of the Constitution, it would be time to remedy society’s other evils, including slavery. As much as New England Federalists may have detested slavery, they desired Union more.

Debates Over the Fugitive Slave Clause

After 1783, when Massachusetts officially abolished slavery, Boston became known as a safe haven for freedom-seeking enslaved people. The city’s active Black community on the North Slope of Beacon Hill and members of its growing abolitionist movement provided protection and support to formerly enslaved people. Essentially, many New Englanders saw their state a beacon of liberty for enslaved persons seeking freedom.

In Rhode Island, the issue of fugitive slaves figured prominently even before the Constitution was ratified. Cato, a runaway slave, had lived and worked in Nantucket for two years after his escape from his master John Slocum in Newport, Rhode Island. Slocum traveled to Nantucket and threatened Cato with legal action if the Constitution were to be ratified. Fearing lifelong slavery, Cato agreed to go back into slavery for one year. Moses Brown, a Quaker, noted that such a policy, “Wounded the Cause of Liberty & the Rights of Men.”