The Constitution is the one document that essentially holds the nation together. It defines what is and is not permissible under the law of the land — it IS the law of the land. Being that slavery was a major problem during the nineteenth century (and late eighteenth century), it was only natural that historians turn towards the dogma of the United States. Although historians had different interpretations, there is only one that seemed logical and had substance. The forefathers of America whom wrote the constitution intended for it to offer protection for the institution of slavery (in other words, it was pro-slavery) because they, themselves, were slaveowners and made no conscious effort to eradicate slavery even though they had to opportunity
…show more content…
Although men like Fredrick Douglass in document 2 (“What to the slave is the fourth of the July?”) expressed that the constitution was a “glorious liberty document” which ensured the freedom of ALL men, the constitution has no explicit mentioning of slavery. No where in the constitution does it say, verbatim, that slavery is to be abolished. Despite the fact that they had the ability to do so, the framers of the constitution chose NOT to remove slavery from the document. Even if they hadn’t removed slavery, they failed to free their slaves (for the most part) and Thomas Jefferson has his reasoning. Jefferson declares, in a letter to John Hope, that “. . . we have the wolf by the ears, we can neither hold him, nor let him safely go. Justice is in one scale, and self preservation in the other.” He expresses, just as many of his cohorts would agree, that liberating slaves was not something that would be easily done. Hence, they must keep the institution alive (for fear of an insurrection). With that motivating them, the forefathers proceeded to draft the constitution and, to an …show more content…
John C. Calhoun was arguably the most prominent Southern politician of his time. His experience as a congressmen and eventually secretary of state/war led him to be able to verbalize the highest wrong of the declaration of independence. Calhoun said, in document 1 (“Speech on the Oregon Bill”), that “. . . the most false and dangerous of all political errors . . . is that ‘all men are born free and equal.’” He specifies that it is socially impossible. He uses this logic to justify that the constitution allows for men to take their property wherever they please (which is explicitly stated in the constitution). This point is used to defer the Wilmot Proviso and is the basis for the Calhoun Doctrine, both instances (the repudiation of the Proviso and the vocalization of the Calhoun Doctrine) support the Constitution’s pro-slavery sentiments. Although this interpretation is attacked by Abraham Lincoln — in document 3 (“Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise”) where he’s upset by the nullification of both the Compromise of 1820 and the Ordinance of 1787 with the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act —, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney of the Supreme Court reassures the nation that the constitution holds that slavery shan’t be interfered with by Congress and that they cannot regulate its extension (only protect
Although men like Fredrick Douglass in document 2 (“What to the slave is the fourth of the July?”) expressed that the constitution was a “glorious liberty document” which ensured the freedom of ALL men, the constitution has no explicit mentioning of slavery. No where in the constitution does it say, verbatim, that slavery is to be abolished. Despite the fact that they had the ability to do so, the framers of the constitution chose NOT to remove slavery from the document. Even if they hadn’t removed slavery, they failed to free their slaves (for the most part) and Thomas Jefferson has his reasoning. Jefferson declares, in a letter to John Hope, that “. . . we have the wolf by the ears, we can neither hold him, nor let him safely go. Justice is in one scale, and self preservation in the other.” He expresses, just as many of his cohorts would agree, that liberating slaves was not something that would be easily done. Hence, they must keep the institution alive (for fear of an insurrection). With that motivating them, the forefathers proceeded to draft the constitution and, to an …show more content…
John C. Calhoun was arguably the most prominent Southern politician of his time. His experience as a congressmen and eventually secretary of state/war led him to be able to verbalize the highest wrong of the declaration of independence. Calhoun said, in document 1 (“Speech on the Oregon Bill”), that “. . . the most false and dangerous of all political errors . . . is that ‘all men are born free and equal.’” He specifies that it is socially impossible. He uses this logic to justify that the constitution allows for men to take their property wherever they please (which is explicitly stated in the constitution). This point is used to defer the Wilmot Proviso and is the basis for the Calhoun Doctrine, both instances (the repudiation of the Proviso and the vocalization of the Calhoun Doctrine) support the Constitution’s pro-slavery sentiments. Although this interpretation is attacked by Abraham Lincoln — in document 3 (“Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise”) where he’s upset by the nullification of both the Compromise of 1820 and the Ordinance of 1787 with the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act —, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney of the Supreme Court reassures the nation that the constitution holds that slavery shan’t be interfered with by Congress and that they cannot regulate its extension (only protect