Was Slavery in the Constitution before it was Abolished?

Answer 1

yes, the original Constitution did.

it stayed that way until the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

"The Constitution that the delegates proposed included several provisions that explicity recognized and protected slavery. Without these provisions, southern delegates would not support the new Constitution--and without the southern states on board, the Constitution had no chance of being ratified. Provisions allowed southern states to count slaves as 3/5 persons for purposes of apportionment in Congress (even though the slaves could not, of course, vote), expressly denied to Congress the power to prohibit importation of new slaves until 1808, and prevented free states from enacting laws protecting fugitive slaves.

Slavery, as all students of history know, continued to be a divisive issue up through the Civil War. Southern states worried that the balance in Congress might tip against slavery, and so were anxious to extend slavery to new territories and states. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 (enacted at a time when slave states and non-slave states had equal representation in the Senate) permitted slavery in Missouri, but prohibited slavery in portions of the Louisiana purchase north of 36°30'.

The Supreme Court, in its infamous decision in Dred Scott v Sandford (1857), ruled that Congress lacked the power to prohibit slavery in its territories. In so doing, Scott v Sandford invited slave owners to pour into the territories and pass pro-slavery constitutions. The decision made the Civil War inevitable. Chief Justice Roger Taney, writing for the majority in Scott, also concluded that people of African ancestry (whether free or a slave, including Scott) could never become "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, and hence lacked the ability to bring suit in federal court.

Before the Civil War ended, Congress passed, and sent to the states for ratification, the Thirteenth Amendment which abolished "slavery" and "involuntary servitude" and authorized Congress to enact "appropriate legislation" implementing the abolition. The Amendment was understood to also make blacks citizens of the United States (overruling Dred Scott on that point). The House vote to propose the Thirteenth Amendment followed the Senate vote, and barely made the 2/3 majority requirement. When the vote was announced the galleries cheered, congressmen embraced and wept, and Capitol cannons boomed a 100-gun salute. Congressmena George Julian of Indiana wrote in his diary, "I have felt, ever since the vote, as if I were in a new country." Ratification by the states quickly followed, and Secretary of State Seward proclaimed the Amendment adopted on December 18, 1865.

Less than a year after ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress used its newly conferred power to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866, giving black citizens "the same right in every state...to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, ...to inherit, purchase, sell, and convey real and personal property; and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens." Supporters if the 1866 law argued that its guarantees constituted "appropriate" means of "enforcing" the right of blacks not to be held in bondage.

The Thirteenth Amendment, unlike most provisions in the Constitution, is self-executing, in that it directly reaches-even without action by Congress- conduct by private individuals (slave holders). Because of this fact, Congress's power under the Thirteenth Amendment allows it to punish forms of private conduct when it might not be able to do so under an amendment such as the Fourteenth, which restricts the conduct of states (prohibiting states from denying equal protection of the laws or due process)."

Answer 2

Slavery In The Constitution

Answer 3

A little clarification on the "3/5" proposition...it was actually good for slaves. Why? The Southern states wanted to count slaves a full person, giving them more representatives in the House or Representatives. More reps would have meant more power for the Southern states. With that power, perhaps the Northwest Ordinances making the land north of the Ohio River free would never have happened. Perhaps the Missouri Compromise that stated that Missouri's southern boundary would be the northern boundary of the slave states as the nation expanded west would never have happened.

We still had to fight a War Between the States in order to settle the question, but without the 3/5 Compromise, perhaps the issue of slavery and abolition never would have reached the point where the Civil War became needed or possible.

Answer 4

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Was Slavery in the Constitution before it was Abolished?

Answer 5

larafaccee is right.

The word "slavery" appears in the Constitution for the first time in the 13th Amendment, but slavery is recognized and given legal protection three times in the original document. In all three cases, the pro-slavery provisions are worded so as not to mention the institution by name.

For the three-fifths provision, see the third part of Article I, Section II.

For the provision dealing with the importation of slaves, see the first sentence of Article I, Section IX.

For the fugitive slave provision, see the third part of Article IV, Section II.

Answer 6

The right to own slaves was not granted by the Constitution. An amendment to abolish slavery was made to clarify the intent.

Answer 7

No specific authorization was given, or needed, but the Constitution does refer to counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person for Congressional apportionment. The South wanted to count them fully, and the North wanted not to count them at all, seeing as they had no voting or other rights. They compromised.

Answer 8

Indirectly.

It did say that a slave is 3/5 of a person for the census to determine the number of representatives for each state.

Answer 9

slavery was mentioned ,that the inport of slaves would stop in twenty years and and that slaves would be counted as 3/5 of a person.

Answer 10

do you mean, was slavery ADDRESSED in the constitution? in essence. when counting population, he who was owned by another man was not even counted as a whole person.

much like female suffrage, it was a gray area that needed to be clarified.